X^^z/ttruZZ:^ JUe, ^fr ^^^^n . ^ 



jl. %■ 



>L^^=^^&€rU< 



t 



BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED; 



SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PRO-SLAYERY 
INTERPRETATIOiNS 



INFIDEL OBJECTIONS. 

BY 

REV. REUBEN HATCH, A.M. 



"Thy Law is the Tectu."— Psalms. 




CINCINNATI: 
APPLEGATE & CO., PUBLISHEES, 

No. 43 MAIN STREET. 
1862. 



V ^^ KM nf Concrpps, in tlio year 18C2, by 
Enteked according to Act oi Longrt -s, 

kev ekuben hatch, a. M., 

,. ..0 Cler.'s Office of t.e BistHct Co..t of t.e Vult^d States for t.e Southern 
District of Ohio. 



X2, 



(^ C> ^ 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

One Great Mission op our Age and Nation 7 



CHAPTER 11. 



The Great Mistake. 



10 



CHAPTER III. 
A Priori Argument ic 

Sec. 1.— Three Great Bible Facts 15 

Sue. 2.— Chattel Slavery and the Law of Natural Right 16 

Sec. 3.— Chattel Slavery and the Great Law of Love 19 

Sec. 4.— Chattel Slavery makes the Bible Contradict Itself. 23 



CHAPTER IV. 

Direct Testimony of the Bible concerning Chattel Slavery. 27 

CHAPTER V. 

Bible History and Teaching concerning Common, or Non- 
Chattel Servitude ^q 

CHAPTER VI. 

General View op Patriarchal Servitude 32 

Stand-point o. 

Elements of the Patriarchal Household .'.."!....!! 37 

(iii) "■ 



58 



lY CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER VII. 

PAGE 

Special Facts and Considerations Confirmatory op the Fore- 
going Conclusion, that Chattel Slavery had no place in 
THE Patriarchal Households 43 

CHAPTER VIII. 

Particular Examination op Various Passages of Scripture 
WHICH refer to Patriarchal Servitude 

Sec. 1— Noah'8 Curse ^^ 

Sec. 2.— Hagar '"'^ 

Sec. 3.— Gen. xvii : 12, 27 '^^ 

Sec. 4.— Joseph ^'^ 

CHAPTER IX. 
A Wonderful and Sublime Prophecy 

CHAPTER X. 

Ancient Darkness and Modern Light— Modern Darkness and 
Ancient Light 

CHAPTER XI. 
Condition op the Jews in Egypt 



83 



95 



96 



CHAPTER XII. 

The Mosaic Code— Introduction 100 

CHAPTER XIII. 

Particular Examination op Various Passages in the Mosaic 
Code which refer to Servitude ^02 

Sec. I.— CirciimstniiPes in which the Mosaic Code was given 102 

Sec. 2.— Institution of tho Passover.— Kx. xii : 43-47 104 

Sec. 3.— Hebrew Servants.— Ex. xxi : 2-0 107 

Sec. 4.— Siiecial case of Contract for Service and Anticipated 

Marriage.— Kx. xxi: 7-11 117 

Sec. 5.— Sundry Kigulations in regard to Servants.— Ex. xxi : 

20,21; xxi: 32; xxii:3 127 



CONTENTS. V 

CHAPTER XIV. 

PAGE 

Foreign Servants — Analysis of Lev. xxv and xxvi 134 

CHAPTER XV. 
The Jewish Family the True Model , 157 

CHAPTER XVI. 

Few Testament Teaching concerning Servitude 159 

The Writers of the New Testament Jews — Hebrew and not 
Greek Writers— True Method of Understanding any Lan- 
guage — New Testament Usage Main Guide in Interpret- 
ing New Testament Language — Mistake of Conybeare and 
Howson — Classic Meaning of Jo-Aoj — New Testament 
Usage of oou^o,- — Inferences and Eemarks 159 

CHAPTER XVII. 

Exposition of Passages in the New Testament which Speak 
OP the Duties of Masters 176 

Eph. vi:9; CoL iv: 1 176 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

Of the Duties of Servants 184 

Sec. 1.— Exposition of ICor. vii: 20-24 184 

Sec. 2. — Exposition of Eph. vi: 5-8 192 

Sec. 3.— Exposition of CoL iii : 22-25 ; iv : 1 198 

• CHAPTER XIX. 

Exposition of 1 Tim. vi: 1, 2; and Titus, ii: 9, 10 201 

CHAPTER XX. 

Inferences and Remarks Suggested by Foregoing Expositions. 206 

CHAPTER XXI. 

Exposition of 1 Peter, u: 18 211 



Vi CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XXII. 

PAUE 

Recapitulation and Conclusions 215 

CHAPTER XXIII. 

Special Chapter on the Two Eelations (1) of Servant and 
Master, and (2) of Slave and Owner 223 

CHAPTER XXIV. 

Eeason why so few Directions Given to Masters and Serv- 
ants — On what Ground these Directions are Good for 
Slaves and Slaveholders — Slaveholders and the Primitive 
Churches 230 

CHAPTER XXV. 

Slavery as a "System," or "Institution" 236 

CHAPTER XXVI. 
Origin of Slavery 239 

CHAPTER XXVII. 
Onesimus 249 

CHAPTER XXVIII. 

Brief Examination of some Anti-Slavery Views 261 

Sec. 1.— Unhappy Tr.inslatioii of some Portions of tho Bible 

wliicli relati- to Servitude 261 

Sec. 2.— Tho Biblo Argument of Dr. Hopkins : Its Strength : Its 

■Weakness: Its Inconsistency 263 

CHAPTER XXIX. 

Brief Criticisms upon some other Anti-Slavery Views 275 



BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 



CHAPTER I. 

ONE GEEAT MISSION OF OUR AGE AND NATION. 

As the battle of the Lord Almighty in the contest 
"between truth and error, right and wrong, goes on 
in the world, different ages and nations will occupy 
different portions of the field. Some of the ages, and 
some of the nations, will be thrown upon a mission 
of experiment and adventure: others will be con- 
vulsed with revolutions, bringing destruction to old 
systems of belief and practice :' others, still, will be 
•inspired to the work of repairing the old wastes, 
organizing, reconstructing, building up. It belongs 
especially to some of the ages to break up, and put 
to decay, that which has grown old, done its work, 
ripened off, and, in its own nature, is ready to vanish 
away. It is the special mission of some of the ages 
to discover, to shape, to lay foundations, and to build 
thereon that which can never be moved. There are 
ages of revolution, darkness, confusion, and chaos : 
and there are ages of quiet advancement in knowl- 
edge, science, and art, and in all ethical and spiritual 

(7) 



8 BIBLE SEEVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

renovation and culture. Each has its place, its con- 
nections, its own work to do. They all help in carry- 
ing the world forward to a glorious millennium of 
truth and righteousness. 

The whole mission of this wonderful present age 
can hardly be fully comprehended and stated by the 
living actors in it. Like all periods in the world's 
history, it is, undoubtedly, only partly known to 
itself. 

If we do not mistake, it is a part of the mission 
of the present age to settle the question of human 
liherty. The providence of God has brought this 
question upon this age as a living question on both 
continents. It can not be suppressed : an irresistible 
providence is in it. The great God of the nations 
is putting the question, and opening humanity's great 
throbbing heart to entertain it, and act upon it. 
Thrones, principalities, and powers. Christian or 
heathen, royal or democratic, are utterly powerless 
to table it. Its discussion may darken the sun, and 
turn the moon into blood; it may shake the stars 
from their places in the heavens, as the figs are 
shaken from the fig-tree by untimely winds; never- 
theless, it must go on, though in the midst of blood, 
and fire, and vapor of smoke. This is one of the 
great battles of this our ago. It is already begun. 
The Armageddon of this battle is, and is to be, the 
American continent. Here slavery has reached its 
most tei-riblc development: here it has established 
its stoutest throne : and here is to be the heart and 
heat of the contest. 



INTRODUCTION. 9 

The great MalakofF of slavery, deemed by its advo- 
cates absolutely impregnable, is a pro-slavery inter- 
pretation of God's Bible. To this it has retreated, 
and now bids defiance to all opposition. By this it 
has debauched the conscience of the world. By the 
help of this it has grown insolent and fierce, and 
now, at last, unblushingly seeks to degrade the labor- 
ino; classes of all hues to the miserable condition of 
chattel slaves, by divine authority. It makes this 
demand by natural right, by Bible right, by all right. 
Further than this, indeed, it can not go : further 
than this it has no interest to go. But it means to 
hold all its ground by divine authority. Formerly, 
it condescended to bring meat-ofierings to conscience 
and the Bible : now, at last, it has opened upon the 
human conscience the batteries of a pro-slavery in- 
terpretation of the Bible, and impudently demands 
a full surrender. 

This brings the question of the Bible and slavery 
into the field : What are the relations of the Bible 
to slavery, and what are its teachings concerning it ? 
If we are not mistaken, this is one of the important 
questions for this age to settle. This question has 
already been opened. It has been discussed : some- 
times with a strange misapprehension of the facts, 
and with a logic stranger still ; and sometimes with 
a powerful array of undeniable facts, and a strong 
logic. Manifest progress has been made. Many 
minds, however, still labor with this subject; and 
many totally mistake the tenor of Bible teaching 
concerning it. Commentators and Bible expounders 



10 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMI]S"ED. 

have made grievous mistakes in interpreting the 
sacred oracles touching this subject. 

We propose, in the following chapters, to make 
an humble, though earnest eftbrt, to unfold the true 
relations and teachings of the Bible, both in regard 
to free servitude and chattel slavery. It is of the 
utmost importance, at the present time, that the 
American people should have clear and correct views 
on this whole subject, that they should be familiar 
with it, that individual conscience should be enlight- 
ened according to truth, and individual practice right. 
We humbly bespeak for these discussions a careful 
and candid perusal. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE GREAT MISTAKE. 



One of the most unfortunate and grievous mis- 
takes of modern literature is the pro-slavery inter- 
pretation which has been given to the Holy Bible. 
This mistake has been imposed especially upon the 
Patriarchal history, the Mosaic code, and those por- 
tions of the New Testament which give directions 
to servants and masters. The mistake in this inter- 
})r(.'tation has been in conlbuiiding the free or non- 
chattel servitude so irequcntly alluded to in the Sacred 
Scriptures, with chattel slavery, and in mistaking the 
former for the latter. 



THE GREAT MISTAKE. 11 

This mistake has been wide-spread. It runs 
through our Lexicons, Commentaries, Expositors, 
Histories, Law Books, School Books, Newspapers, 
Lectures, and Sermons. It is a base habit of modern 
literature to confound chattel slavery with Bible-ap- 
proved servitude. It is not to our present purpose 
to inquire for the reasons of this. The fact can not 
be disputed. 

. Now, we think it can be proved and shown, beyond 
all dispute or question, that the only servitude ap- 
provingly alluded to in any part of the Old or New 
Testament, was a free or non-chattel servitude, and, 
in no instance, chattel slavery. These are two very 
distinct and different things. It introduces endless 
mistakes, contradictions, and errors, to confound them 
in interpreting the Sacred Scriptures. To avoid this 
confusion in the present discussion, let us define and 
separate a little, in order that we may know whereof 
we are speaking. 

Let it be carefully noted, in the first place, that 
freedom and slavery are not correlative terms. Free- 
dom and restraint are correlatives. There may be a 
large measure of restraint without the least approach 
to slavery, and there may be a large measure of free- 
dom along with slavery. In all civilized society there 
must be more or less restraint upon all the members 
thereof. But this is not slavery. In all human so- 
ciety, there must, of necessity, be more or less of serv- 
itude, and that more or less restricted. Parents must 
serve their children, and children their parents; 
teachers must serve their pupils, and pupils obey 



12 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

their teachers ; ministers are bound to serve their 
people, and grateful people have the privilege of 
"ministering" to those by whom they are ministered 
unto, "in word and doctrine;" and all men are bound 
"by love" "to serve one another." 

Let it be distinctly observed, also, that the word 
slavery has come to have a definite and very uni- 
form meaning. Usage is much in advance of most 
of the dictionaries in its verdict as to the significa- 
tion of this word. The word slavery, now describes 
the condition of human beings held or regarded as 
property. This is what slavery is in this country : 
this is the identical thing wdiich constitutes the bone 
of contention and controversy between pro-slavery 
and anti-slavery men, and this is the sense in which 
the word is used with great uniformity, except in 
sophistical efforts of political demagogues and others 
to hide the true character of slavery. The slavery 
of this country is chattel slavery, and all the slavery 
there is in this country about which there is any con- 
troversy, is chattel slavery. Therefore, to avoid all 
ambiguity, we shall use the term slavery, and the 
compound term chattel slavery, in the sense indi- 
cated above. 

We will endeavor to remember, then, what chat- 
tel slavery is, and what it is not. 

1. It is not governmental oppression of free men. 
There may be, and often is, much of this, more or 
less unjust and wicked, without any approach to 
chattel slavery. 

2. It is not individual oppression of servants, paid 



' THE GREAT MISTAKE. 13 

or unpaid. This is everywhere common enough, 
and always has been, but does not constitute chattel 
slavery, 

3. It is not social oppression of classes of people 
whose circumstances are providentially unfortunate, 
either through their own vices and follies, or the 
misfortunes and misdeeds of their ancestors ; or nei- 
ther. Abundant examples of this, involving great 
wrong, are to be found in our large cities. 

4. Nor again, is it the punishment of criminals for 
their crimes. This may involve close confinement 
and hard labor for others without compensation, but 
does not constitute chattel slavery. 

5. Nor yet is it restriction of rights and privileges 
on account of peculiar circumstances. Foreigners, 
under any government, may be circumscribed in their 
privileges very much, and yet by no means reduced 
to a state of chattel slavery. 

6. The rendering of service without remuneration, 
which service is even rendered with great reluctance, 
is not, and does not constitute chattel slavery. 

7. Unqualified subordination to unlimited author- 
ity, as in the case of sailors on board of ships, and 
as was the condition of children in relation to their 
fathers among the old Romans, does not make chat- 
tel slavery. 

8. Filial subordination and subjection does not 
constitute chattel slavery. 

9. Apprenticeship is not chattel slavery. 

10. Moral and spiritual enslavement to appetite, 
lust, and passion, is not chattel slavery. 



14 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

There may be great oppression and great wicked- 
ness connected with any or all of these things, and 
others like them, yet in no such things as these is 
chattel slavery to be found. The oppression in them 
is the oppression of people unchattelized, and there 
is neither slave nor slavery in them. 

It will bear to be repeated : chattel slavery is the 
chattelizing of human beings — it is the regarding, 
treating, and holding of human beings as property. 
The oppressing of free people, whether they be serv- 
ants, masters, or kings, however wicked and wrong 
it may be, is not chattel slavery. The restricting 
of the privileges of people, for adequate reasons in 
the circumstances, is not chattel slavery. Chattel 
slavery is the propertyizing of human beings. This 
is its prime, essential element. This is what con- 
stitutes the burden, the entity of the thing. It is 
the same when imposed upon a king, as when im- 
posed upon a servant: it is the same when imposed 
upon a black man as when imposed upon a white man. 
As a practical fact, it stands alone in the world : in 
all our investigations and reasonings concerning it, 
let us keep it isolated and separated from every thing 
else. Especially let us endeavor to keep it distinct 
from //'cc or non-chattel servitude. This latter serv- 
itude, more or less restricted, the Bible recognizes, 
provides for and makes laws for; the other, chattel 
slavery, it knows nothing of except to condemn and 
prohibit it. Free or non-chattel servitude, more or 
less restricted, is a benevolent necessity of human 
society; chattel slavery, wherever it prevails, is its 



A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 15 

direst curse. The former the Bible recognizes and 
sanctions; tlie latter it condemns and prohibits. 
This, a careful examination of Patriarchal history, 
the Mosaic code, and those portions of the New 
Testament which give instructions to servants and 
masters, will, we think, abundantly show. 



CHAPTER III. 

A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 

Section 1. — Three Great Bible Facts. 

In opening the Bible, as God's book, three great 
facts stand revealed before us. 

1. As God's book, the Bible is, and must be, con- 
sistent with itself. xVll its particular precepts and 
injunctions must be in perfect harmony with its fun- 
damental principles : and all these must be in har- 
mony with one another. 

2. All the teachings of the Bible must agree with 
the great law of love : since, on the authority of the 
great Teacher himself, this law lies at the foundation 
of all that the Bible contains. There is, and can be, 
nothing in the Bible, which God has sanctioned, in- 
consistent with this law. 

3. As God's book, the Bible must be consistent 
with the law of natural right. 

Indeed, the law of natural right is nothing else 



16 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

than tlie great law of love, as anaounced in the Sacred 
Scriptures. 

No man in his senses can deny any of these state- 
ments. If the Bible is God's book, it must be con- 
sistent with itself: it must be consistent with the 
great law of love : it must be consistent with natural 
right. Any interpretation which makes the Bible 
contradict itself, any interpretation which makes its 
teachings inconsistent with the great law of love, any 
interpretation which brings it into conflict with the 
law of natural right, must be false. 

Thus far, all is clear, on the supposition that the 
Bible is God's book. If, then, chattel slavery, or any 
thing else, makes the Bible contradict itself, the Bible 
does not, and can not, sanction it, or that thing : if 
chattel slavery, or any thing else, makes the Bible 
violate the law of love, which is professedly its own 
fundamental principle, the Bible does not, and can 
not, sanction it, or that thing : if chattel slavery, or 
any thing else, brings the Bible into conflict with the 
law of natural right, the Bible does not, and can not, 
sanction it, or that thing. 

These conclusions are inevitable. 

Sec. 2. — Chattel Slavery and the Laio of Natural 
Right 

Let us, then, in the first place, confront chattel 
slavery, face to face with the law of natural right. 
Chattel slavery, mark, is the chattelizing of human 
beings. The property-element is that which distinct- 
ively characterizes and constitutes it. As a matter 



A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 17 

of fact, this element lies at the foundation of all slave- 
holding enactments, of all fugitive slave laws, of all 
judicial decisions on the side of slavery, and of all 
pro-slavery reasonings relating thereto. 

And to call chattel slavery a mere paternal guard- 
ianship, or to give it any other smooth and innocent 
name, is the most paltry and shallow quibbling to 
which partisan sycophancy or cotton divinity ever 
descended. Chattel slavery is the reducing of human 
beings to the category of property. Now, this is 
nothing else and nothing less than direct and gross 
trespass upon inalienable, personal, natural rights. 

It is a somewhat which no human being ever has, 
or ever can have, the least right to do to his fellow. 
I have not, and by no possibility can I ever have, the 
least imaginable right to hold or treat my neighbor 
as property : and he has not, and never can have, any 
right to regard,- or hold, or treat me as property. 
No combination of men, no extent of governmental 
authority has any such right. The right can not 
exist any more than the right to regard, hold, or 
treat human beings as brutes can exist. There is no 
power in heaven, earth, or hell, so great as to possess 
the right to regard, hold, and treat human beings, 
God-made above the brutes, and God-imaged, as 
brutes. No such right is either possible or allowable. 
To do so is direct personal wrong, per se, to those so 
held and regarded. Exactly in the same way, and 
for the same reason, the right to chattelize human 
beings never did, and never can, exist. It is direct 
trespass upon rights that inhere in universal human- 
2 



18 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

ity. It is gross wrong, and can never be perpe- 
trated without involving gross wrong. It is always 
sin per se, and no times, places, or circumstances can 
make it any thing else. It is always unlawful and 
forbidden trespass upon that manhood which never 
deserts a living, breathing child of Adam. 

And this is the verdict of universal conscience. 
There is not a living man on the face of the earth, 
whose manhood has not been crushed out of him by 
gross abuse, who would not instantly know and feel 
himself greatly wronged, in the first attempt of his 
fellow to treat him as property. Every living con- 
science knows absolutely that this is trespass upon 
God-given manhood, and palpable violation of the 
great law of natural right. There is not a slave- 
holder in all slaverydom that does not know this; 
and whose moral sense, when the hellish screws^ of 
this degradation should be wrenched down upon him- 
self, would not be startled and offended, and cry out, 
with unmistakable authority, " Hands of!" 

So testifies universal humanity. Indeed, there is 
not a plainer violation of the great law of natural 
right perpetrated under the light of the sun, nor in 
the hidden darkness of midnight, than the chattel- 
izing of human beings. To chattelize the inlant in 
the cradle, is to violate its Adamic manhood: it is 
trespass upon the sacred dignity of it^ living and 
distinctive creatureship as coming from God Al- 
mighty's hand. It can no more be done without 
wrong, than you can regard your brother as a dumb 
brute, or treat him maliciously and selfishly, without 



A PEIORI ARGUMENT, 19 

wrong. To cliattelize the full-grown man or woman, 
is direct trespass upon natural and inherent rights, 
and can never be perpetrated without sin, and that 
too, sin per se, even though done to the meanest 
wretch that ever lived, and in the deepest bosom 
of the lowest depths of the bottomless pit. It is 
pure sin always and everywhere, and neither man 
nor devil can make it any thing else, any more than 
the malicious and selfish treatment of God's rational 
creatures can be made any thing else than sin. 

Therefore, by the surest sequence, since the Bible, 
as God's book, does not and can not sanction any 
thing that violates the law of natural right, and 
since, as we have seen, chattel slavery is palpable 
and gross trespass upon the law of natural right, 
the Bible does not, and can not, give it any counte- 
nance whatever. 

Sec. 3. — Chattel Slavery, and the Great Law of Love. 

The Bible, as God's indivisible revelation of truth 
to man, has its fundamental principle of law and 
doctrine. That principle is the law of love. 

This is not only the great principle which under- 
lies the whole Bible, and upon which all its teach- 
ings, from Genesis to Revelation, rest, but it is also 
the great fundamental principle of the entire moral 
government of God. The first and simplest expan- 
• sion of this principle is that made by Jesus Christ : 
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy 
heart;" and, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy- 
self." On this moral couplet "hang all the law and 



20 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

tlie prophets ; " and it may now be added, with per- 
fect truthfulness, all the gospel too. This is the 
divine announcement of the one great law of love: 
love as a principle of action — love which is true be- 
nevolence — love which is good-will to being, unself- 
ish, impartial, universal. This principle covers all 
possible right, and, by implication, interdicts all pos- 
sible wrong. With this principle the entire Bible 
hai-monizes, and never departs from it in any of its 
laws, doctrines, instructions, or precepts. Every 
word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord, 
on all moral questions and subjects, must be based 
on this principle, and agree with it. 

This principle, therefore, is always a eafe guide in 
the study and interpretation of the Bible, so far as 
we are able to understand and apply it. Any inter- 
pretation of the Bible which can be fully and fairly 
shown to be in conflict with this principle, must, of 
necessity, be wrong. Any interpretation which ar- 
rays God's teachings, arrangements, permissions, or 
admissions, in regard to the social relations of Jews 
or Gentiles, against this principle, must be erroneous. 

Now this principle, be it remembered, recognizes 
and protects all rights, and forbids all trespass upon 
rights. It demands that every being shall be con- 
sidered and treated benevolently, and all his rights 
sacredly regarded. It protects all rights, and con- 
demns all trespass upon rights. Hence it does and 
forever must recognize and defend the individual 
and personal manhood of every child of Adam. It 
allows no trespass upon that manhood or any of its 



A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 21 

rights. For example, it does not, and it can not, 
allow that rational creatures, made in the divine 
image, should be regarded and treated as brutes. 
It does not allow this from fellow creature ; it does 
not allow it from angel; it does not allow it from 
God. Such treatment is both a lie and a direct 
trespass upon inherent, unalienated, and unalienable 
rights. Hence, by no possibility can the law of love 
ever allow any such thing. It must eternally con- 
demn it. 

Nor again, example second, does this law permit 
either God or man to treat the creature maliciously 
and selfishly. Neither devils in perdition, nor wicked 
criminals of earth, can be treated by any being, or 
combination of beings, maliciously and selfishly, with- 
out direct violation of the great law of love. All 
such treatment is sin per se, sin in itself, and nothing 
but sin. Criminals may be punished, but always for 
adequate reasons, and at the behests of the law of 
love. No being can be, or become, so guilty as to be 
beyond the circle of the great law of good-will. Even 
devils have a sacred creatureship, which ill-wnll can 
not invade without rebuke and condemnation from 
the great moral law of the universe. Then, surely, 
this must be true of angels and probationary men. 

In like manner, example third, the chattelizing of 
human beings is, in itself, a direct violation of the 
great law of love. From the statements and explana- 
tions already made, this is perfectly manifest. Chat- 
tel slavery, as we have seen, is direct trespass upon 
inherent, unforfeited, and unforfeitable rights, and 



22 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED, 

lience, since the law of love eternally forbids such 
trespass, it must be only and simply violation of that 
law. Good-will to my neighbor never does, and^ever 
can, lead me to invade sacred and inalienable rights. 
If, by crime, he forfeits certain rights and privileges, 
neither by crime nor by any thing else can he forfeit 
his right to manhood. This right is absolutely inal- 
ienable. It lies wholly beyond the reach of forfeiture. 
No being in the universe can trench upon this right, 
without trampling under foot the Scripture law of 
love. Chattel slavery lays hold of this right, and 
lays it in the dust ; hence it tramples down the great 
law of love ; and hence, again, it must be contrary to 
all Scripture, for all Scripture, both general and par- 
ticular, agrees perfectly with this law. 

This reasoning is so simple, so plain, so conclusive, 
so unanswerable, that more words need not be ex- 
pended to make it plainer. The Scripture law of 
love must forever interdict all chattelizing of hunum 
beings. And, in spite of all learned logomachy to 
make something else appear, I verily believe the 
Christian, moral sense of the world does so decide. 
The best piety of the Christian world does not judge 
that the law of love sets men to chattelizing, enslav- 
ing, their fellow beings : that such nefarious invasion 
of unforfeited and inalienable rights is a beautiful, 
heavenly, and Christ-like exemplification and fruit ofj 
disinterested, unselfish, pure, and holy love ! It 
never has judged thus, and it never will, for the very 
good reason that such judgment is a lie. 



A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 23 

Sec. 4. — Chattel Slavery makes the Bible contradict 
itself. 

It follows inevitably, from the foregoing reasonings 
and conclusions, that the Bible can not give any sanc- 
tion to chattel slavery without loading itself with 
endless contradictions. The following examples will 
sufficiently illustrate and confirm this remark : 

1. The Bible, as all that read it well know, every- 
where condemns all oppression in the strongest lan- 
guage, and never spares its terrible threatenings of 
the most fearful judgments upon the oppressor. 
God's rebuke against oppression, in all forms, as 
gross sin and gross violation of the divine law, liter- 
ally runs through the entire Bible. Moses wrote: 
" Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob 
him;"* "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor op- 
press him ; "f " Ye shall not oppress one another; "| 
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; "§ and 
much more of the same import. He frequently refers 
the Jews to their own experience under the hand of 
the oppressor in the land of Egypt, as teaching them 
to " know the heart of a stranger," as a strong motive 
to deter them from practicing oppression upon their 
fellow-beings, even though they were strangers and 
Gentiles. The command is most express, and oft 
repeated throughout the Pentateuch, to the Jews, that 
they should " do no unrighteousness " either to " neigh- 
bor" or "stranger." 

Now, who does not know that there is no oppression 

• Lev. xix:13 f Ex. xxii : 21. J Lev. xxv : 14, 17. gLev. xix;18. 



24 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

done under the sun more unrighteous, viore oppres- 
sive, more grievous to be borne, more unlawful and 
outrageous, than that which begins by trampling the 
very manhood of the rational creature in the dust, 
and continues only by a continuous perpetration of 
the same villainous trespass upon God-given rights ? 
Who does not know that this is the highest kind of 
robbery? There is no other robbery that can be 
perpetrated upon a human being, that deprives him 
of so much that is good and valuable to him, as that 
involved in chattelizing him. It implies in it univer- 
sal trespass upon all rights. It is the perfection of 
oppression upon men, to reduce them to the condition 
of property, and use them as such. Everybody knows 
this. And the man that does not know this, or pre- 
tends that he does not, only needs to be put under 
this terrible millstone of wrong to bring him fully 
to his senses. 

Therefore, if Moses has anywhere given any sanc- 
tion to chattel slavery, either among Jews or Gentiles, 
he has flatly contradicted himself. He has both for- 
bidden all oppression and sanctioned the most abom- 
inable and unlawful stamp of oppression that ever 
cursed the earth. This contradiction can be obviated 
only by denying that chattel slavery is oppression, 
which is a manifest falsehood, or by denying that 
Moses does sanction it, which latter assertion both is, 
and can be shown to be, the truth. 

In like manner, the prophets, and the writers of 
the New Testament, abound in the strongest denun- 
ciations of oppression and the op})rcssor, the language 



A rEIOEI ARGUMENT. 25 

of which is oftentimes most terrific. All along, either 
expressly or implicitly, God promises to " be"a swift 
witness" ''against those that oppress the hireling in 
his wages, the widow and the fatherless, and Siat 
turn aside the stranger from his right."* How com- 
plete the contradiction, if, through these writers, in 
the same breath, God has given warrant for that 
which is the climax of all oppressions ! admitted and 
known to be such by the universal, moral sense of 
the race ! 

2. Again, miiMiiwdiCii of par ticidar 2orccept8 utterly 
subvert chattel slavery, and make it impossible. 
Quotations under this head might be extended to fill 
a volume. Examples abound on almost every pao-e 
of the Bible. Only one or two, however, can be 
given here. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy- 
self." No man can obey this command, in its true 
spirit, and make merchandise of his neighbor. 

"Masters give unto your servants that which is 
just and equal." No master can do that, and, at 
the same time, regard, and treat, and hold his serv- 
ants as property. No man can, for a moment, hold 
' his servants as chattel slaves, without perpetrating 
the grossest injustice: no man can do it without sub*^ 
verting all righteous equality. By no possibility can 
any one hold any but free servants, in obedience to 
this precept. 

In like manner, multitudes of other particular 
precepts of the Bible run directly under chattel 
slavery, subverting it utterly. Obedience to these 

* Mai. iii : 5. 



26 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

precepts is altogether incompatible with the chattel- 
izing of our brother man. 

3. The Bible expressly forbids chattel slavery, under 
penalty of death, and so can nowhere give it sanction 
without flatly contradicting its own positive injunc- 
tions. " If a man be found stealing any of his breth- 
ren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise 
of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; 
and thou shalt put evil away from among you.''— 
Dcut. xxiv : 7. Beyond all contradiction, the thing 
forbidden here is chattel slavery: it is treated as an 
evil, (a moral evil,) to be put away : the man wdio 
should be guilty of this evil is pronounced a "thief:" 
the penalty for such theft is capital punishment, 
showing that the crime is a capital one. 

Now, if any one demurs from all this, by saying 
that this law related only to the chattelizing of JewSj 
he is respectfully but earnestly referred to the general 
statute in Ex. xxi : 16, under which the specific en- 
actment in Deuteronomy belongs. "And he that 
stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in 
his hand, he shall surely be put to death." " A man " 

any man. This is " the law," which Paul affirms 

in 1 Tim. i : 10, was made for "mcn-stealers." Here 
then, we have, first in God's Bible, the universal 
statute forbidding chattel slavery on pain of death : 
and second, lest the Jews should overlook a command 
so important, a specific statute guarding every Jew 
in particular, as the general statute guarded every 
man of the race, from this most ruinous and grievous 
of all violations of the second table of the great law 



DIRECT TESTIMONf. 27 

of love. In l)otli cases alike, the crime is considered 
a capital oftense, witli capital punishment for its 
penalty. Chattel slavery can begin, and can be per- 
petuated only by man-stealing, and making merchan- 
dise of those so stolen. Man-stealing is in it, every 
moment of its existence. If the Bible allows this, it 
allows that which is a manifest contradiction of its 
own express injunctions. 



CHAPTER IV. 

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF THE BIBLE CONCERNING CHAT- 
TEL SLAVERY. 

Precisely in accordance with the foregoing state- 
ments, reasonings, and conclusions, is the direct and 
positive testimony of the Bible concerning chattel 
slavery. With earnest and solemn emphasis, it cat- 
alogues it, as we have just seen, as a crime — and as 
a capital crime. This testimony is brief, but un- 
equivocal, decisive, and conclusive. Great and gross 
crimes are frequently disposed of in God's Scripture 
in few words. There are iniquities on this earth of 
which, the pen of inspiration declares, it is a shame 
even to speak. 

This direct and express testimony ot the Bible 
concerning chattel slavery is not to be found, how- 
ever, in either Old or New Testament legislation 
concerning free or non-chattel servitude. Entirely 
separate from this, it stands by itself alone. It is 



28 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

testimony wliicli fully grapples witli tlic subject, and 
disposes of it at once. 

Of chattel slavery, God said to tlie Jews, by the 
mouth of their great law-giver, Moses: "And he 
that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be 
found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." 
— Ex. xxi: 16. 

But lest the Jews should overlook a command so 
important, this general statute is reiterated in a spe- 
cific form, to guard every Jew in particular, as the 
general statute guarded every individual of the race, 
from this most ruinous and grievous of all violations 
of the second table of the great law of love. "If a 
man be found stealing any of his brethren of the 
children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or 
selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt 
put evil away from among you."— Deut. xxiv: 7. 

Comment upon these passages is hardly necessary. 
There is no mistaking the subject spoken of in these 
passages: there is no mistaking that which is said. 
They contain the sum and substance of Mosaic legis- 
lation on the subject of chattel slavery. 

This legislation seems to have been anticipatory, 
and designed to meet individual cases of crime of 
this sort, that might possibly arise in the future his- 
tory of the Jews. It contemplates no existing system 
of iniquity, inasmuch as no such system was in ex- 
istence when these statutes were delivered. It is 
brief, positive, and final. Bible prophets, preachers, 
and historians recognize this as God's authoritative 
legislation on this subject. 



DIPvECT TESTIMONY. 29 

This legislation is distinctly alluded to and in- 
dorsed by the great apostle and leading writer of 
the New Testament, in the following passage: "But 
we know that the law is good, if a man use it law- 
fully ; knowing this, that the law is not made for a 
righteous man, but lor the lawless and disobedient, 
for the ungodly and for sinners, lor unholy and pro- 
fane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of 
mothers, for man-slayers, for whoremongers, for them 
that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, 
for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any 
other thingj^ontrary to sound doctrine." — 1 Tim. i: 
8, 9,- 10. 

The ''law" referred to in this passage is, unques- 
tionably, the law of Moses. That particular portion 
of it which was " made " " for men-stealers " must be 
the identical statutes which we have quoted above. 
Hence, the apostle fully indorses the Mosaic law 
concerning chattel slavery. It is especially worthy 
of remark concerning this passage, that the word 
^'men-stealers'' means, etymologically, men-sellers, or 
properly, enslavers, showing that Paul distinctly re- 
cognized the stealing and selling as one and the same 
offense."* 

We have, then, the direct, positive testimony of 
both Testaments concerning chattel slavery as great 
and gross crime, unequivocally and positively for- 
bidden. The law of natural right, the great law of 
love, and the express, positive testimony of the Bible 
are perfectly agreed in their verdict concerning it. 

•:■■ Pxes. E. B. Fairfield. 



30 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 



CHxiPTEE, V. 

BIBLE HISTORY AND TEACHINQ CONCERNING COMMON 
OR NON-CHATTEL SERVITUDE. 

The foregoing statements, reasonings, and conclu- 
sions have never yet been met, face to face, and 
shown to be faulty or erroneous. They never can 
be. Nevertheless, the advocates of chattel slavery, 
and multitudes of others, imagine that, somehow, all 
this is set aside as containing some hidden fallacy, 
by the supposed fact that certain particular precepts 
and laws in the Bible do recognize and sanction 
the existence of chattel slavery ; that they were de- 
signed by the Almighty to regulate it as an admis- 
sible and lawful institution; and that when, as a 
matter of fact, it is so regulated, it is, for the time 
being, at least, lawful and right, and receives the 
Divine approbation. 

In this false notion lies the great mistake in inter- 
preting the teachings of the Bible concerning chattel 
slavery. As already observed, this mistake consists 
in confounding chattel slavery with righteous, non- 
chattel servitude, and in interpreting the teachings of 
the Bible concerning the latter as if they related to 
the former. lu this way these entire teachings have 
been wrested and abused to the service of chattel 
slavery: in this way God's freely-expressed sanction 
of common, or non-chattel servitude, has been stolen 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. ol 

for the expressly prohibited iniquity of chattel slavery. 
In this way divine sanction for chattel slavery has 
been found in the righteous, non-chattel servitude 
of the Patriarchs, in the laws and regulations of the 
Mosaic code concerning common servitude, and in 
the teachings of the New Testament on the same 
subject. By this falsehood, as the cuckoo appropri- 
ates the nest of her neighbor in which to incubate 
and nestle her own young, chattel slavery has found 
a nesting place in God's AVord. Nowhere else in the 
Divine Word is to be found a place even for the sole 
of its foot. It maintains its place here only by false 
interpretation, and by arraying one portion of the 
Bible against other portions. 

This makes it necessary to examine the whole 
subject of common or non-chattel servitude, as that 
subject is alluded to and treated of in the Sacred 
Scriptures. We propose to prosecute this examina- 
tion under the three following heads, in their order, 
namely, Patriarchal Servitude, Mosaic Servitude, and 
New Testament Servitude. In no one of these shall 
we find chattel slavery. The true title, therefore, 
of this examination is, " Bible History and Teaching 
concerning Common, or Non-chattel Servitude." 



32 BIBLE SERVITUDE BE-EXAMINED. 

CHAPTER VI. 

GENERAL VIEW OF rATEIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 

In tlic history of the Patriarchs, as given by Moses, 
allusions to servitude frequently appear. This is as 
might have been expected : for, as already intimated, 
servitude, of necessity, belongs to all human society, 
and probably to all society of good and holy beings 
in heaven and everywhere else. Indeed, what is 
obedience to the great law of love, other than heartily 
willing, and sincerely doing, service for others ? What 
an indefatigable servant to the universe which his 
benevolence has built, is the great Father of all ! 
The Lord Jesus Christ, the great representative of 
the Father, came into this world ''not to be minis- 
tered unto" — not to receive service — but "to minis- 
ter," to render service. And are not the angels " all 
ministering spirits" — serving messengers — ''sent 
forth " to do service " for them who shall be heirs of 
salvation ? " In the church of Christ, too, the great 
law is, "b)^ love serve one another." 

Indeed, service-rendering is J,he noblest form of 
rational and moral activity. In the very constitution 
of human society there must be service, compensated 
or uncompensated, servitude in different forms. In 
the early history of the race, before the flood, and on 
after the flood in Patriart'hal times, there was servi- 
tude, of course. Servitude, in some form, moi'c or 



PATRIAr.CnAL SERVITUDE. o^ 

:ess restricted, is to be looked for in all ages of tlie 
world, and in all places where human beings dwell. 
But this, by no means, implies the existence of chattel 
slavery. This is often assumed, but always without 
good reason. The having of servants is one thing; 
the chattelizing of servants, or of other people, is 
quite another thing. 

The question, therefore, for us to keep in mind all 
along in this examination of Patriarchal servitude, 
is not whether servitude actually existed in the fami- 
lies of Abraham and the Patriarchs, for this is fully 
admitted; but whether the servitude which existed 
there was the servitude oi freemen, or the servitude 
of chattel slaves. A true view of Patriarchal servi- 
tude will show that it must have been the former, 
and could not possibly have been the latter. 

Stand-point. 

In looking in upon the social relations, and in ex- 
amininsc the condition of the different members of 
Patriarchal society, it is all-important to gain the 
right stand-point. If we assume, to start with, that 
Abraham, who lived nearly four thousand years ago, 
was located on some modern South Carolina negro 
plantation, and that the forms of language and ex- 
pression in which his history is given were derived 
from the usages, feelings, and prejudices of modern 
pro-slavery society, we make a great mistake. This 
at once puts us into a false position in relation to 
Patriarchal servitude, and the view gained therefrom 
is false. 
4 



34 BIBLE SERVITUDE BE-EXAMINED. 

Abraliam and the Patriarchs, it shoukl be remem- 
bered lived only a few generations after the flood. 
They lived in simple, Patriarchal times, when the 
earth was just beginning to be inhabited, when a 
nation consisted either of a mere family, with the 
father at the head, as ruler, or, at most, of a small 
tribe or clan, with the leading patriarch thereof at 
the head, as chief, or king. Of necessity, this must 
have been the state of things for several generations 
after the flood ; and for a long time after, there must 
have been a strong tendency to this Patriarchal form 
of government and of society. Now this was a state 
of society and a form of government somewhere be- 
tween the simple, single family model and a king- 
dom. Kingdoms, in the enlarged modern sense, had 
not yet appeared. The Patriarch, or chief, was not 
a king after the fashion of modern kings, but was 
rather the; ruling head of a compound family. 

The first generation after the flood consisted of 
Japheth, Shcm, and Ham, and their wives: three 
families. The second consisted of the children of 
these three great sires of the post-diluvian world, 
and a corresponding number of families. As suc- 
'ceeding generations followed, families were multi- 
plied. In the tenth after the flood, Abraham lived. 
Now, it is very manifest, that in this early period of 
the settlement of the earth, in this Patriarchal age, 
people must have dwelt apart, as separate and inde- 
pendent families, or they must have associated them- 
selves together, either in one single community, or 
in several smaller comuumities, according to relation- 



PATRIAECHAL SERVITUDE. 35 

ships, tastes, or other circumstances. But it is very- 
easy to see that human beings, in any age of the 
world, would not be very likely to dwell ''alone," 
either as single individuals, or as isolated families. 
They would naturally seek association together. The 
power of the social principle alone, would be suf- 
ficient to draw them together, either in one general 
community, or into smaller compound households or 
tribal communities. So, too, from considerations of 
mutual convenience in getting a living, as herdsmen, 
hunters, and tillers of the ground, and for purposes 
of mutual defense against wild beasts, and against 
other clans, or individuals, would they be brought 
together in the same way. All the history that has 
come down to us of those early times confirms these 
statements. 

It is further manifest, that leading minds would 
be very likely to establish households of their own, 
and gather about them other families and individ- 
uals of less mental and physical power, and so become 
heads, chiefs, or patriarchs of the tribes, or little 
kingdoms, thus constituted. Hence the multiplica- 
tion of tribes and chiefs in Patriarchal times. And 
hence each compound, patriarchal household would 
be made up of the Patriarch's own fiimily proper, 
and of other single families, and individuals, male or 
female, associated with him. 

In all cases the Patriarch, or chief, was the ac- 
knowledged leader and ruler. In him, for the most 
part, was vested the supreme governmental authority, 
as law-giver, judge, and general. Of the whole com- 



36 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

pound household he was principal master. All the 
members thereof acknowledged his authority as head- 
man, and held themselves ready to follow him, and 
perform any service which he should require. He 
was lord and master of the whole household, and 
all its members accounted themselves his servants. 
Nevertheless, this apparently absolute authority 
would be strongly restrained and much controlled 
by the Patriarch's own sense of justice, and by the 
will and wishes of the members of his tribe. Of 
course, before inferiority of races was either known or 
possible in the world, such association of families and 
individuals would be entirely voluntary, and on the 
principle of fimdamental equality. On the ground 
of governmental necessity, the Patriarch was head- 
man of the whole household, but head-man by the 
free consent of the individual members thereof. In 
the nature of the case, without such consent, he would 
be utterly powerless. He was head-man over a com- 
munity of freemen, and all his power lay in their 
voluntary devotion to him and the household. It 
would seem that chattel slavery, in such circum- 
stances, would be an absolute impossibility. Says an 
eminent Southern senator : " Slavery can not exist a 
day or an hour, in any Territory or State, unless it 
has affirmative laws sustaining and supporting it, 
furnishing police regulations and remedies," any 
more, " than a new-born infant could survive under 
the heat of the sun, on a barren rock, without pro- 
tection." Who can not see that such supports of 
law and police force would bo impossible in the little 



PATHIARCEAL SERVITUDE. 37 

independent Patriarchal tribes or liouseliolds into 
which the race were gathered in the Patriarchal 
ages following the flood, including Abraham's day ? 
It seems to us that the very constitution of society 
utterly forbade the existence of chattel slavery in 
those days. A correct viao of Patriarchal society 
reveals the fact that chattel slavery was imj)ossible, 
and that the servitude of those days was simply the 
servitude of honorable citizenship in the household. 

Elements of the Patriarchal Household. 

The manner in which the Patriarchal household 
was thus made up and enlarged, reveals very clearly 
the different elements, or sorts of persons, of which 
it was composed. It is manifest from Scripture, as 
well as from other ancient history, that it was re- 
garded, in Patriarchal times, as a matter of great 
importance to enlarge and strengthen the household, 
or tribe, as much as possible. Indeed, in those days, 
when land and many other things which constitute 
modern property, were of little or no value, a man's 
possessions w^ere estimated mostly by the extent of 
his household, and the number of his cattle and 
sheep. Hence it was always a favorite object with 
the Patriarch to gather about him a numerous house- 
hold. A large citizenship was his pride and delight. 
This fact frequently crops out in Scripture and other 
ancient history. 

The Patriarch could accomplish this in several 
ways : but always on the principle of freedom. In 
the circumstances of those early times, it would 



38 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

plainly be impossible for him to make up and enlarge 
his houseliold on the basis of chattel slavery. In the 
nature of the case, his whole power lay in the volun- 
tary devotion of the members of his household. There 
was no police force, military power, or governmental 
authority whatever back of them, to which he could 
appeal or resort for the enforcement of his commands. 
Foreign aid, from beyond the circle of his own little 
community, was entirely out of the question. Volun- 
tary loyalty to himself and the household was the sole 
basis of all his power. In such a state of things, 
chattel slavery was manifestly impossible. As things 
actually were, in Patriarchal times, when the people 
were few, and the materials for the formation of na- 
tions with the machinery of national governments 
did not exist, when the earth all lay common and 
open to every man, when inferiority of races and 
most of the artificial distinctions of modern society 
were unknown, and when all the people were much 
on a level as to intellectual, moral, and social culture, 
it would have been a simple impossibility for any 
Patriarch or chief to make up a household, to enlarge 
and strengthen it, or to keep it together on the basis 
of chattel slavery. Isolate Southern slave planta- 
tions, cut them off from all help of police force and 
other governmental support from without, lay out 
the whole country, teeming with game and vegetable 
productions for the support of human life, commo'i 
and open to every man, abolish the idea of inferiority 
of races, and introduce the equality of ancient Patri- 
archal days between slave and maiitcr, as to education, 



rATEIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 39 

moral development, social culture, general intelli- 
gence, and common haljits, and chattel slavery could 
not exist a single day. 

The construction and enlargement of the Patri- 
archal household, therefore, could have proceeded 
only on the basis of free, honorable, and voluntary 
citizenship.' On this basis the embryo kingdom of 
the Patriarch might have been enlarged in several 
ways. 

1. First, obviously, by natural increase : embracing 
his own children, grand-children, etc., and close kin- 
dred. 

2. By mutual agreement : whereliy several families 
became associated together, subject to one Patriarch 
or chief. It would always be an advantage, in many 
ways, for inferior families to join superior and 
stronger households. 

3. The Patriarch might also build up and enlarge 
his household by a mutual contract or bargain for 
service and citizenship in the household, for a givec 
sum of money paid by him. This bargain might be 
for a limited or an unlimited period of time. The 
Patriarch might thus ''buy" citizens for his tribe or 
embryo kingdom for a term of years, for life, or for- 
ever. When the time was unlimited, the individuals 
thus engaged by Patriarchal purchase, would become 
united to the household as their nation and home, 
permanently: much as modern emigrants leave one 
nation and settle in another permanently for them- 
selves and their children, except that in Patriarchal 
days the nation was only a large household. 



40 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

4, Another source of enlargement would be from 
cliildren born within the range of the general house- 
hold. In this gathering together of families and 
individuals to make up the Patriarchal compound or 
tribal household, single families remained intact, and 
sino-le familv relations undisturbed. Nevertheless, 
these families, as parents and children, belonged to, 
and made part and parcel of, the tribe. Children 
born in any part of the tribe, just as in nations at 
the present day, belonged to the tribe, and added to 
its strength. 

Patriarchal society, therefore, would contain in it 
the following fundamental elements : 

1. Children proper, and near kindred. 

2. Individuals and families associated by mutual 
nco;otiation. 

3. Individuals and families bought witli money. 

4. Children born in any department of the general 
household. 

Guests, strangers, and sojourners, and hired serv- 
ants, being transient persons in relation to the house- 
hold, are, of course, omitted in this enumeration of 
fundamental elements. 

If, now, we turn to the history of the Ilelirew 
Patriarchs, as given us in the Bible, we shall find, as 
a matter of fact, that these identical classes of per- 
sons arc alluded to as belonging to Patriarchal society, 
and no others. These Patriarchs themselve-s were 
manifestly independent chiefs of such compound 
households as Ave have described. They evidently 
sought tu luiild uj> and strengthen their huUochuldij 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 41 

ill the several ways which we have mentioned ; and 
hence, they had in their households servants or sub- 
jects corresponding with these several ways. 

Abraham, for example, as a wise and courageous 
chief, had, in his household, all these several classes 
of persons. 1. He had his own family proper, 
2. Others associated with him by mutual agreement, 
as Lot and his household, for a while. 3. Persons 
who had been engaged by special contract to unite 
with his clan, sometimes characterized as " bought 
with^iioney." 4. And additions by birth within the 
range of his little kingdom, sometimes called " sons 
of the house," or '' born in the house." These differ- 
ent classes of free persons made up the house of 
Abraham, the infant Hebrew commonwealth. They 
belonged to his Patriarchal jurisdiction, and, as such, 
were his "possession." As subjects thereof, they 
were, and were often called, "servants." In no case 
were they ever called slaves. Indeed, in all this con- 
stitution of the Abrahamic household, there is no 
place for chattel slavery. Manifestly, these several 
classes of persons were all free men, women, and chil- 
dren attached to Abraham and his household, accord- 
ing to the usages and necessities of the times. Thus, 
the "bought with money," the "born in the house," 
and those associated by mutual agreement, were all 
free fellow-citizens of a Patriarchal nation, in which 
no trace of chattel slavery is anywhere to be found. 
Even the words slave and slavery were unknown 
and unheard of in the Abrahamic language, so far 
removed were the things which these words repre- 



42 EIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED, 

sent, from the great Patriarch's thoughts, practices, 
and kingdom. 

This view of Patriarchal society, and the Patri- 
archal household, is fundamental to a right under- 
standino: of Patriarchal servitude. To illustrate this 
view, and confirm its correctness, we adduce the fol- 
lowing description of a modern chief, and his tribal 
household, from Dr. W. M. Thomson's "The Land 
and the Book." 

"We encamped for the night near the tent of the»Emeer 
Ilussein el Fudle, the supreme chief of all the Arabs in that 

part of the Jaulan We were received with great 

respect ; fresh coffee was roasted, and a sheep brought up, 
slaughtered, and quickly cooked before our tent, and the ex- 
temporaneous feast spread for us in presence of the emeer. 
Though he did not literally run to the herd and bring it him- 
self, others did, at his bidding, and the whole affair brought 
the patriarch Abraham vividly to mind. Like our emeer, he 
dwelt in tents, and his dependents were encamped about 
him with their flocks and herds. There were not more than 

thirty tents at this encampment They [?". e. the 

people] and their ancestors have belonged to his family for 
so many generations that all trace of their real origin ia 
lost They arc the property of the emeer in a re- 
stricted sense, and so are the flocks and herds which they 
are permitted to hold, and he does not hesitate to take what 
he wants, nor can any refuse his demands, whatever they 
may be. l>ut then custom, or law, or botli, utterly forbids 
him to sell them. 1 inquired into all these matters tlie next 
day, as we rode through the country, under the pi'otection and 
guidancTe of his head-servant, who reminded me constantly 
of ' Eiiezur of Damascus.' In answer to my question, he ex- 
chiimod, in indignant surprise, 'iSell us! isiiKjfar allah — Clod 
forbid ! • 



rATRIARCIIAL SERVITUDE. 43 

"They are, in fact, the horaeborn servants of the very an- 
cient house of el Fudlo, and like the 318 in Abraham's family, 
they are his warriors in time of need, which, in one way or 
another, happens almost dail}'. They seem to be attached to 
the emeer, or rather, perhaps, to his family name, rank, power, 
and honor. Their own honor, safety, and influence all de- 
pend upon him." 

In speaking further of the "head-servant" alluded 
to, Mr. Thomson says that he was "almost startled 
to find that the emeer was entirely governed by" 
him. "He [the emeer] does nothing of himself; 
and this modern Eliezer not only disposes of his 
master's goods, but manages the affairs of his gov- 
ernment very much as he pleases. All the Arabs 
of the Huleh and Jaulan greatly fear and court this 
chief servant." 



CHAPTER VII. 

SPECIAL FACTS AND CONSIDERATIONS CONFIRMATORY 
OF THE FOREGOING CONCLUSION THAT CHATTEL 
SLAVERY HAD NO PLACE IN THE PATRIARCHAL 
HOUSEHOLDS. 

1. Positive evidence of its existence is wholly 
wanting in the words and phrases used to designate 
and describe the various members of Patriarchal 
society. If chattel slavery had existed in the Patri- 
archal households, we should be sure to find it, and 



44 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

its cliaracteristic flxcts, designated by terms so def- 
inite as to identify it beyond all dispute. But this is 
not the fcict. It is admitted, on all hands, that spe- 
cific words for slave and slavery are not found in 
ancient Hebrew literature. It is presumable, to say 
the least, that if the thing itself had been there, the 
words to represent it would have been there too. 

It is, indeed, true, that several words and phrases 
appear in the Patriarchal history, which have some- 
times been supposed to point to the existence of 
chattel slavery. They are such as the following : 
"servant" and "servants," with the corresponding 
verb "serve," "men-servants" and "women-serv- 
ants," "bondman" and "bondwoman," "bond-serv- 
ant" and "bondmaid," "maid-servant," "buy" and 
" bought with money," " sell " and " sold." 

Now, in regard to all these terms, it may be re- 
marked, in general, that "Weld, Barnes, Cheevcr, and 
others have abundantly shown that, in themselves, 
they have no distinct and specific reference to chat- 
tel slavery. 

(1.) Their investigations have fully proved that 
the distinction which appears in our English transla- 
tion between "servants" and "bondmen," or "bond- 
servants," " maid-servants," and " bondmaids," is 
entirely a gloss of the translators. No such distinc- 
tion appears in the original Hebrew. In it the 
words are the same, and arc used in reference to all 
kinds of service and all classes of persons, including 
the service of God and the service of the most sacred 
friendships, and persons of the highest rank and 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 45 

character, as Moses, David, Isaiali, and the most 
distinguished personages of Jewish history. There 
is not the least intimation, in all the Patriarchal his- 
tory, that these words ever had a degraded sense ; 
and not one solitary character appears on the arena 
of ancient Jewish history, who seemed to regard it 
as dishonoraljle to apply to himself these identical 
terms. 

(2.) The Hebrew words for " buy " and " sell," 
and "bought witli money," also had a similar gen- 
eral meaning, and had no specific reference to chat- 
tel slavery. They were freely applied to cases where 
chattel slavery was impossible. " Then Joseph said 
iirLto the people, Behold I have bought you this day, 
and your land for Pharaoh." — Gen. xlvii : 23. " More- 
over Euth, the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have 
I purchased to be my wife." — Euth iv : 10. In Pa- 
triarchal history, the procuring of a wife and the 
procuring of a servant, are described in the same 
language. Both were bought with money, were the 
purchase of silver, the one to be a wife, the other 
to be a servant, and neither to be a chattel slave. 

The truth is, the original Hebrew words for these 
English terms are such, in their usage, as are per- 
fectly applicable to free men and free society: and 
such as would have been used if chattel slavery had 
never been heard of. Therefore they furnish not one 
particle of positive evidence of the existence of chat- 
tel slavery in the Patriarchal households. Indeed, 
if it had existed there, there would have been an- 
other set of words and phrases by which to designate 



46 BIBLE SEEVITUDE BE-EXAMINED. 

it and its conconiitants, and separate it from the free 
servitude which is described under the terms alluded 
to above. So that in the absence of specific terms 
for slavery and its necessary incidents, the terms 
actually employed indicate that it had no place in 
Patriarchal society. They are precisely such terms, 
every one of them, as free Patriarchal society de- 
manded, and not the terms which slaveholding Pa- 
triarchal society would have demanded. Later in 
the history of the world, in other nations, where 
chattel slavery was superadded to free servitude, we 
find specific terms to designate it and its concomi- 
tants. In the Hebrew language this additional set 
of terms is wholly wanting. 

2. But there is positive evidence in the usage of 
these terms that the "buying" of servants "with 
money," as referred to in Patriarchal history, did 
not and could not mean chattel slavery. The writer 
of that history, in another Book, has given us, inci- 
dentally, a clue to the meaning of this phraseology 
as found in the Pentateuch, wdiich establishes its 
sense beyond all question. 

Turn, if you please, to Lev. xxv : 47-52, and note 
the words and phrases there used, and their manifest 
meaning. The case is that of the poor Jew who 
should '' sellliimself" to a "stranger or sojourner." 
He might be redeemed by any of his kindred, or any 
of his brethren, or he might ''redeem himself" ''if 
able." "And ho shall reckon with him that bought 
liim from the year that he was sold to him unto the 
year of Jubilee; and the price of his sale shall be 



PATIlIARailAL SERVITUDE. 47 

according unto the number of years, according to 
the time of a hired servant shall it be with him." — V. 
50, " If there be yet many years behind, according 
unto them he shall give again the price of his re- 
demption out of the money that he was bought for." 
— V. 51. Here the servant was " bought with money ;" 
but he also sold himself: money was paid for him ; 
but it was paid to himself. Most manifestly here is 
nothing in all this "buying" of the servant ''with 
money," and in his being "sold," but simply an 
agreement between one free man and another free 
man, by which the one agrees to perform service for 
the other, and belong to his household for satisfac- 
tory compensation. This is precisely what these 
terms mean, and all they mean, when used in connec- 
tion with Abrahamic and Patriarchal history. 

In modern times, the buying of negroes with 
money, means chattel slavery. But this, by no 
means proves that the buying of servants with 
money meant chattel slavery in Patriarchal times, 
where the words slavery and slave were never heard 
of. Indeed, the " buying " of servants " with money," 
can mean chattel slavery only where the existence of 
chattel slavery has originated and established this 
specific usage of such language. Everywhere else, 
such language refers only to bargain between free- 
men. In free countries, and among free people, such 
language refers only to engagement for services ac- 
cording to usages of the times. The writer noticed, 
not long since, among the news items in a secular 
newspaper printed in Northern Ohio, the following : 



48 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

"A vagrant in Cincinnati sold her three-days old 
babe for $3." In Ohio, such language has not the 
remotest imaginable allusion to chattel slavery : in 
New Orleans, it would probably refer to nothing else. 

So, in Patriarchal times, this sort of phraseology 
referred simply to the arrangement with the servant 
himself, to secure his alliance to the household, ac- 
cording to prevailing usages. Chiefs, and heads of 
families, and clans, could greatly increase their house- 
holds, and so their strength and influence, by thus 
enlisting, for money paid to them, and not to a 
third party, such individuals and families as they 
could induce to join them. This was the Abrahamic 
and Patriarchal " buying with money." The indi- 
viduals thus bought were free men, women, and 
children, who made their own bargain for selling 
themselves, and did service according to the usages 
of the times. 

3. But this baseless assumption, that Abraham 
and the Patriarchs bought chattel slaves, by no 
means warrants the conclusion that they ever held 
them as such. If we admit that the whole three 
hundred and eighteen " trained servants " whom 
Abraham "armed" and led forth to the "slaughter 
of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with 
him," were actually bought of somebody after the 
manner of modern slave-buying, that does not prove 
at all that Abraham ever thought of making chattel 
slaves of them himself, or ever held them as such for 
a single hour. 

Suppose Abraham did buy chattel slaves : did he 



PATEIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 49 

ever hold them as such himself? The former sup- 
position throws no light upon the latter question. 
To buy a chattel slave out of the hands of a slave- 
holder, does not constitute the buyer a slaveholder, 
by any means. He may be the most ultra abolition- 
ist that ever breathed, tor all that. If the history 
had anywhere said that Abraham did sell, as mer- 
chandise, sundry persons, and did actually take money 
for them of some third party, and did deliver said 
persons over to said third party as property, this 
would throw great light upon the question whether 
he ever held chattel slaves. But this latter sort of 
historical evidence happens to be totally wanting. 

4. Chattel slavery is a degradation and an op- 
pression so unwelcome and distressful to human be- 
ings, that they never did, and never will endure it, 
if they can escape from it. In Patriarchal times, all 
any slave had to do to escape and be free, was to 
use his legs and walk off in full and undisputed pos- 
session of that charter of freedom which God Al- 
mighty writes upon every human heart while it is 
forming in the maternal womb. It was a simple 
impossibility for the Patriarchs to hold chattel slaves, 
for the very good reason that a single night would 
emancipate the whole of them wholly beyond the 
power of capture. Nay, they could all walk straight 
off at their leisure in broad mid-day sunshine, in 
spite of all that the Patriarchs could do to hinder it. 
The whole land lay before them, full of game and 
fruits, to sustain life : and freedom was just as cheap 
to every one of all the servants of the Patriarchs, as 
5 



60 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

slavery. It is the sheerest nonsense to suppose, that, 
as they journeyed from one part of the country to 
another, they had a long train of chattel slaves at 
their heels, like some hideous Legree of our Southern 
states. 

It is said of Abraham, for example, that, at one 
time, for a certain military expedition, he "armed 
his servants born in his own house, three hundred 
and eighteen." If he could muster so many from 
among his servants that were fit to bear arms, and 
to be led forth on such an errand, his whole house- 
hold must have consisted of some thousands. His 
own household was a sort of traveling kingdom : it 
existed by itself, separate from all other tribes and 
households; there was no governmental authority, 
military force, civil police, or other resource to 
which he could apply for assistance, outside of the 
circle of his own tents. How, then, could he hold in 
the hated subjection of chattel slavery this large 
number of people? A late eloquent writer has very 
shrewdly remarked that " the most natural supposi- 
tion is, that the Patriarch and his wife ' took turns ' 
in surrounding them ! " * 

5. The necessary concomitants of chattel slavery 
do not appear in the Patriarchal history. A careful 
examination of that history does not reveal one soli- 
tary characteristic of slaveholding society in the 
Patriarchal households. 

(1.) As already noticed, the terms applied to serv- 
ants have no degraded sense. These terms are so 

<• Wnld. 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 51 

used as to preclude all idea of degradation. But the 
idea of great degradation always goes along with 
chattel slavery ; with the word slave and the condi- 
tion of a slave. The absence of this in the Patri- 
archal history, indicates that slavery was not in the 
Patriarchal families. 

(2.) The Patriarchal history does not reveal a 
chattel slave class of people as distinct and separate 
from common servants. These two separate classes 
of people, namely, chattel slaves and common serv- 
ants, can not be distinguished anywhere in this 
history. Only one class appears. That class has 
all the characteristics of common or non-chattel 
servants. Nowhere does that class present the pe- 
culiar characteristics of chattel slaves. But where- 
ever chattel slavery exists, slaves always appear as 
a class separate and distinct from common or free 
servants. 

(3.) The marketing of servants nowhere appears 
in the Patriarchal households. There is not in all 
this history the obscurest hint that the Patriarchs 
ever sold any of their servants. There is no inti- 
mation that they ever regarded them as objects of 
sale : that the thought of making merchandise of 
them ever once entered their minds. But who does 
not know that the selling of slaves always goes along 
with chattel slavery ? 

(4.) Nor, again, does the guarding of servants as 
chattel slaves ever come to light in this history. 
We never hear a word about the slave-hunt, either 
with or without blood-hounds, for the capture of the 



52 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

fugitive. AVe hear not one syllable touching Patri- 
archal valor in reclaiming the guilty runaway : nor 
is the snap of the slaveholder's whip, in inflicting 
the needed torture upon the quivering flesh, ever 
heard. This whole Patriarchal history is as barren 
of all such slaveholding concomitants as the history 
of a Connecticut Dorcas Society would be. The Pa- 
triarchs lost, hunted, and sold cattle, and sheep, and 
asses, but there is no hint that they ever lost any 
slaves, or hunted any, or sold any. If they never 
had any, this is sufficiently accounted for. 

(5.) The word owner is never applied to masters 
in relation to servants. They were called masters 
of the servants under them, but never openers. The 
servants are represented in the Patriarchal history 
as having been the possession of the master, j ust as a 
man's wife and children are his own, his possession : 
but in no instance are they represented as having 
been the possession of the master as merchandise. 

(6.) The price of a man is never the subject of 
consideration, while the icages are. Chattel slavery 
sets a price upon every slave, and he is known and 
estimated by his price. In free society, the price 
of a man is unknown. Free servants are spoken of 
in reference to their wages, and never in reference 
to the price of the man himself. 

(7.) Neither slave-rebellions, nor the fear of them, 
ever appear in the Patriarchal history. These, and 
the fear of thom, always go along with chattel slav- 
ery. Tliey mark its entire past history. In the 
nature of things, they must ever belong to it. 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 53 

6. The characteristics of free society broadly mark 
this whole history. 

(1.) Servants, all the servants there were, consti- 
tuted ?rn honorable class. No man ever appears to 
have been dishonored by either being or being called 
a servant. 

(2.) Servants were intrusted with important er- 
rands and responsibilities, just as if they were free 
men, and the official agents of their masters, and in 
a manner entirely inconsistent with the condition of 
chattel slaves. It is said of the " eldest servant " of 
Abraham's house, that he "ruled over all that he 
had." Of this servant Abraham took an oath, de- 
scribed in the followino; remarkable lanQ-uao-e : " Put, 
I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh : and I will 
make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, 
and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a 
U'ifc unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites 
among whom I dwell. But thou shalt go unto my 
country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto 
my son Isaac." — Gen. xxiv : 2-4. Who ever heard 
of a chattel slave intrusted with such a responsibility 
as this in regard to his master's son ? 

Then the Sacred Eecord proceeds to tell us that 
this servant Jitted himsdf out for the fulfillment of 
this sacred promise, with a retinue of *' men," and 
"ten camels," and a large burden of golden "brace- 
lets " and "ear-rings," and "jewels of silver and jew- 
els of gold and raiment," and "precious things." 
His journey led him across the country, four hun- 
dred miles or more, entirely beyond the reach of his 



54 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

master. All this was wholly inconsistent with the 
existence and necessities of chattel slaveiy. Other 
similar events are recorded in the Patriarchal history. 

(3.) Servants and masters associated together in 
a manner consistent only with a state of freedom and 
manhood equality. Abraham, in the transaction al- 
luded to above, took an oath of his servant, just as 
if he was his equal. " Swear, I pray thee." And 
just as if a man's full responsibilities belonged to him. 
Servants and masters engaged in the same employ- 
ments together, and dwelt together evidently as equal 
fellow-citizens, occupying the different relations of 
servant and master. 

(4.) Servants were freely armed and trained for 
war ; armed, trained, and trusted in war, just like 
loyal citizens, and in circumstances wholly incon- 
sistent with a state of slavery. See the account of 
Abraham's slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and the kings 
that were with him. Such arming and training of 
servants for war, in the circumstances, indicates a 
state of freedom. 

(5.) Servants are the only class of citizens, high 
or low, alluded to in the Patriarchal history, as be- 
lono-inn; to the Patriarchal household. The whole 
membership, except children, were called servants. 
Abraham, as well as Isaac, in building up his house- 
hold, gathered about him many hundreds, and prob- 
ably thousands of people, and all those are called 
servants. So of other Patriarchies. The highest, 
lowest, and only class of citizens known in the Patri- 
archal history, except children of the chief, are called 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 55 

servants. If all these were chattel slaves, then an- 
cient society consisted of a few score of chiefs, and 
all the rest of the people were chattel slaves. But 
this supposition is absurd in the extreme. The serv- 
ants, therefore, must have been the free fellow-citi- 
zens of the Patriarchal kingdom. 

(6.) Hence, the fact which distinctly crops out in 
Patriarchal history, that the servant sometimes be- 
came the master's heir. "And Abram said. Behold, 
to me thou hast given no seed : and, lo, one born in 
my house is mine heir." If the servants constituted 
the citizenship of the household, and if the masters 
were the ruling chiefs of the house, as a little king- 
dom, this was natural and necessary even, when the 
chief had no children to whom he could bequeath 
his authority and place. To build up the house, and 
transmit it, was a favorite object with the ancients, 
put into their minds, no doubt, by the Spirit of the 
Almighty. Of necessity the household must have a 
head ; a head as ruler and guide. It could not exist 
without such master. Heirship, therefore, fell, of 
course, to some of the servants, in case the master 
died childless, inasmuch as servants constituted the 
membership of the household, and were the only 
class of people in it. In default of a legitimate heir 
in the private family of the chief, some member of 
the general household must become heir to the head- 
ship, or the house would be dissolved and scattered. 

(7.) Hence, too, the fact that servants acquired, 
held, and disposed of property as their own, just as 
if they had all the rights' and privileges of fi'ee men, 



56 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED, 

and in a manner entirely inconsistent with the ex- 
istence and necessities of chattel slavery. AVhen 
Jacob was the servant of Laban, he outstripped his 
master in the acquisition of property. 

(8.) The children of female servants were acknowl- 
edged and treated as men and heirs. This chattel 
slavery forbids. But there is no hint in the Patri- 
archal history that the children of female servants 
suffered any degradation on that account. The chil- 
dren of the maid-servants of Leah and Kachel were 
reckoned among the twelve Patriarchs, precisely in 
the same manner as were the children of their mis- 
tresses. Whoever should say that Ishmael, the son 
of Hagar, Sarah's handmaid, was a chattel slave, 
would have a serious account to settle with him, if 
he were still alive. 

Other decisive marks of freedom, as opposed to 
chattel slavery, might be given, Ijut we forbear. The 
servitude of the Patriarchal history was either free, 
non-chattel servitude, more or loss restricted, or it 
was chattel-slave servitude. If it was free servitude, 
the regulations pertaining to it, and the facts evolved 
in the history of it, would correspond thereto : if it 
was slave servitude, the characteristics of slave servi- 
tude would appear in the regulations in regard to it, 
and in the history of it. We have seen that the 
characteristics of chattel slavery are wholly wanting, 
and that the marks of free society everywhere 
abound. 

7. Slaveholding is an element of meanness in char- 
acter which ought not to bo' charged upon the Patri- 



PATRIAECHAL SERVITUDE. 57 

archs unnecessarily. It is a mean thing in any man 
to regard, or use, or treat his fellow as property. 

It is immeasurably more honorable to the Patri- 
archs to suppose that they gathered about them- 
selves an embryo nation of freemen, and acknowl- 
edged fellow citizens, than it is to charge them with 
the despotism and injustice of reducing the great 
majority of the membership of their households to 
the degraded condition of chattel slaves. It was 
noble in them to do the former : it would have been 
most ignoble in them if they had been guilty of the 
latter. 

Commentators and expounders of Patriarchal his- 
tory and character should look well to their proofs, 
before they set it down as irrefragable orthodoxy, 
that chattel slaves made up the principal part of the 
Patriarchal households. Such a stigma upon their 
character ought not to be admitted without the clear- 
est evidence: such evidence as the Sacred History 
nowhere gives us. 

8. The divine testimony in regard to Abraham 
and his character utterly forbids the supposition that 
he himself was a slaveholder, and his servants slaves. 
God says of him: ''For I know him, that he will 
command his children, and his household after him, 
and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do 
justice and judgment." — Gen. xviii: 19. How per- 
fectly inconsistent this testimony is with the notion 
that Abraham was the original founder of chattel 
slavery, the most unjust of all forms of trespass 
upon manhood rights, and himself the actual leader 



68 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

and owner of an enormous gang of slaves ! Com- 
mentators who suppose this of Abraham, and gravely 
accuse him of this great wickedness, surely make a 
most grievous mistake. God knew Abraham better 
than this, and has sent down to us a better record of 
him. "And they shall keep the way of the Lord to 
do justice and judgment." 



CHAPTER VIII. 



PARTICULAR EXAMINATION OF VARIOUS PASSAGES OF 
SCRIPTURE WHICH REFER TO PATRIARCHAL SERV- 
ITUDE. 

Sec. 1. — JSvah's Curse. 

In this investigation we shall not go back beyond 
the great flood. It would be useless to attempt to 
do this. Howbeit it is a great satisfaction to us who 
believe in the universal brotherhood of the race, to 
know that in the first family in the beautiful and 
holy Garden of Eden, there were no slaves. God 
gave Adam a wife to be his companion; but he 
neither gave to him, nor to Eve his wife, any slaves. 
There were no slaves in Eden, There were no slaves 
in the first family out of Eden. 

Passing by the generations before the flood, wo 
begin, then, with the family of Noah, after the flood. 
And here, too, we have the comfort of knowing that 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 59 

there were no slaves in the Noachian household, un- 
less, indeed, they were overlooked among the cattle 
and four-footed beasts and creeping things that were 
crowded into the Ark. Some of the commentators, 
strangely enough, make iVbraham, "the father of 
the faithful," the actual father and founder of chat- 
tel slavery in this world : but the honor of starting 
the original idea has been quite extensively accorded 
to JSToah, in the '^ curse" which it has been supposed 
he pronounced against Canaan. Whether the great 
Ark-builder originated the idea himself, or whether 
he received it as one of the theological achievements 
of the other side of the flood, or whether it was 
given to him by divine inspiration, does not very 
clearly appear. We would respectfully suggest this 
as an important subject of inquiry for the theological 
antiquarian. If Noah brought this idea over the 
flood with him, it is very possible that it may yet 
be traced back to the very gates of the Garden : or 
at least to a period coeval with the killing of Abel. 
It would certainly be interesting to find out that 
murder and slavery were veritable twin-children of 
depravity, actually born at the same birth. 

But as theological history now runs, chattel slavery 
was conceived by Noah about the time of his ugly 
experiment with the wine of the vineyard which he 
planted, and brought into the world by Abraham, 
not far from the time when the rite of circumcision 
was instituted.* According to this testimony, there- 
fore, its pedigree is of the highest order. 

=^'See Cottitgc Bible : note, Gen. xvii : 12. 



60 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

But seriously, the manner in which the Patriarchal 
prophecy of Noah concerning his sons has been in- 
terpreted by certain expounders of Sacred AVrit, is 
a remarkable illustration of the facility with which 
common sense may be renounced when Bible matters 
and religious things are the subjects of consideration. 
It appears, from Bible history, that it was not uncom- 
mon, in Patriarchal times, for the aged Patriarch to 
pronounce a prophetic, farewell benediction upon his 
children. This benediction was prophetic, and, when 
inspired, it corresponded with the facts of subsequent 
history. It changed nothing: it simply spoke, by 
prophetic foresight, of after facts in the history of 
the persons concerned. It, of itself, really blessed 
nobody, and it cursed nobody. When, for example, 
Jacob, thus, in his dying and farewell benediction 
upon his sons, prophesied in regard to their subse- 
quent history, he did not make one hair white or 
black as to that history. His prophetic benediction 
changed nothing : established nothing : decreed noth- 
ing. It simply revealed the future, as the spirit of 
prophecy made that future known to him. It con- 
tained in it both good and evil, and, in that sense, both 
blessing and curse. We call it a benediction for the 
want of a better term, and because it contained in it 
much more l)lessing than curse. The old Latin word 
dictio, would, perhaps, be a better word to use in 
such cases; but usage compels us to retain the word 
benediction, though it properly means only blessing. 

The history of Noah's life, as given in the book of 
Genesis, after the account of the flood is closed up 



PATEIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 61 

at the 17tli verse of the ninth chapter, is very brief. 
It is all contained in the twelve remaining verses of 
the chapter. These verses contain only three or four 
incidents of Noah's life after the flood, very briefly 
described, without any reference, apparently, to the 
time when they took place, except his death, which is 
distinctly stated to have occurred three hundred and 
fifty years after the flood. These few incidents took 
place sometime during these three hundred and fifty 
years : exactly at what time the Record does not state- 
It is altogether probable that Noah planted his 
vineyard, and became drunken on the wine thereof, 
not verv Ions; after the flood. His unfortunate ex- 
posure, as the result of his drinking, and its discovery 
by his children, must have occurred in immediate con- 
nection with his drunkenness. From the Record it 
appears that Ham, his youngest son, happened to see 
the nakedness of his father first : of necessity, as the 
first to notice it, he must have seen it. No one of 
the sons could have had any knowledge of it at all, 
except as one of them became an actual eye-witness 
of it. It so happened that Ham, wittingly (ff unwit- 
tingly, was the first to notice the nakedness of his 
father. He told his brothers. They, being thus in- 
formed of the matter, had no need to witness their 
father's degradation, and so they "took a garment" 
"and went backward and covered the nakedness of 
their father." Whether Ham, or either of the other 
sons, was at all to blame in all this, doth not appear 
from the Sacred Record. The presumption, is that 
none of the children were to blame. Blame, doubt- 



62 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

less, attached to the father. He awoke from his 
wine, and had the chagrin to know that his younger 
son had been an eye-witness of his degradation, and 
that all his sons were thus made acquainted with it. 

The rest of Noah's life after the flood, of three 
hundred and fifty years, is passed over in silence, 
except his farewell, prophetic benediction upon his 
sons. This is recorded in the 25th, 26th, and 27th 
verses of this ninth chapter. It is not said when this 
was uttered: but, from the nature of the utterance 
itself, and from the circumstances of the case, it is 
altogether probable, nay, morally certain, that this 
prophecy was uttered near the close of his life. It 
was a dying, farewell dictio respecting his sons, as to 
their after history : it is the last thing said of the 
venerable Patriarch, next to the account of his death : 
near the close of his life was the most suitable time 
for such an utterance. We protest most fully against 
the notion that such a solemn, inspired prophecy as 
this, was uttered by Noah just as he was coming out 
of a drunken fit ! What witless and morbid stupidity 
has possessed commentators to favor such an absurd 
idea, is more than we can comprehend. As if druidv- 
enness was favorable for the reception of the Holy 
Spirit for the gift of prophecy ! 

In this farewell utterance of Noah respecting the 
future of his sons, not one word is said of Ham, 
either good or evil, except that which is spoken of 
Canaan his son. There were very good reasons for 
referring especially to Canaan. The most prominent 
thing in regard to Ham, before the mind of the dy- 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 63 

ing Patriarcli, was the miserable future of his son 
Canaan. This was especially and strongly presented 
before his mind, by the spirit of prophecy, undoubt- 
edly because the Canaanites would be so closely con- 
nected with subsequent manifestations of Jehovah to 
the world. They were to be the objects of special 
divine judgments for their iniquities, to be executed, 
in part, by God's chosen people. This is reason 
enough why they should be particularly referred to 
by the dying Patriarch. But, in speakiAg of this 
miserable future of the son of Ham, Noah really 
makes no curse : decrees nothina; : entails nothing- 
either upon Ham or upon Canaan : he simply re- 
veals beforehand what was to be the future. That 
future was a miserable, cursed future : but Noah did 
not make it so by any thing he said. Prophecy does 
not make the future of which it speaks : it only re- 
veals it beforehand. 

This prophetic utterance of the dying Patriarch 
has no connection whatever with Ham's accidental, 
and for aught the Eecord states, innocent notice of 
his father's shame. It was probably spoken hund- 
reds of years after that incident occurred.* That 
people, and even grave commentators, can so far lose 
their wits as to imagine that Noah, just as he was 
coming out of a fit of intoxication, was inspired by 
Almighty Grod to pronounce a terrible malediction, 



* It is no very unusual thing in Scripture for events, and even centuries, to 
be dropped out between two consecutive verses, and those linked together as if 
in immediate succession, which, in fact, were widely separated." — Pbes. E. 
Hitchcock, D. D. 



64 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

as a divine judgment upon Canaan and his children, 
for the assumed wickedness of Ham, his father, is 
certainly a great marvel. This is making the chil- 
dren's teeth snap for the iniquities of the father, in 
right good earnest. And then, to extend this sup- 
posed malediction to the other children of Ham, and 
their descendants, concerning whom nothing at all is 
said in the Sacred Kecord, and make that a warrant 
for enslaving said descendants, and committing all 
sorts of wrong upon them, puts the worst logic the 
devil ever used altogether in the background. Brave, 
indeed, are they that can swallow such doctrines and 
interpretations, and believe them precious morsels of 
divine inspiration ! 

"Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall 
he be unto his brethren." This prophecy concerning 
Canaan, which was not otherwise a prophecy con- 
cerning Ham, and which had nothing to do with the 
other children of Ham, and hence nothing to do with 
the Africans, received its fulfillment in the after 
history of the Canaanites. The prophetic curse was 
uttered against Canaan, and it was fulfilled upon 
Canaan, that is, upon his descendants. It has, there- 
fore, no more to do with the inhabitants of Africa, 
than it has with the serfs of Russia, the people of 
Ireland, or the American Indians; and if it had, it 
would no more justify the enslavers of the Africans, 
than our Savior's prediction that Judas should be- 
tray him justified the traitor in the murderous 
betrayal of his Master. Prophecy of, future wicked- 
ness furnishes no justification for its perpetration. 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 65 

It even adds guilt to such perpetration, by carrying 
with it some sort of warning against it. 

Sec. 2. — Hagar. 

*' Now Sarai, Abram's wife, bore him no children : 
and she had a handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name 
was Hagar."— Gen. xvi : 1. "Had" her how? as a 
slave, or as a handmaid? The Record says, as "a 
handmaid." She is nowhere called a slave, and there 
is not the least hint, in the whole Mosaic account of 
her, that she was a slave. The history which we have 
of her in the book of Genesis, clearly shows that she 
occupied, in the Abrahamic household, the first place, 
on the female side, next to Sarah : as Eliezer of Damas- 
cus occupied the first place next to Abraham, on the 
male side. To count either of these persons as slaves, 
totally mistakes the constitution of the Abrahamic 
household; and is as wide of the mark as it would be 
to pronounce the venerable Secretary of State, of the 
late administration, and the lady who presided at the 
White House in Washington, President Buchanan's 
slaves : every whit as far from the truth. Abraham 
was a prince, at the head of a powerful clan : Sarah, 
his wife, was a princess, as her name signifies : the 
persons on both sides nearest to them, and most inti- 
mately associated with them, were Eliezer and Hagar : 
Eliezer as steward, or first overseer of afiairs, and 
Hagar as the handmaid, or maid of honor, to Sarah. 
Eliezer w^as of Damascus, and Hagar was of Egypt — • 
foreigners of the most honorable type. They were 

both, as connected with the Abrahamic household, or 
6 



66 BIBLE SERVITUDE :feE-EXAMINED. 

nation, the subjects of Abraham: and hence, in ac- 
cordance with the common language of the times, 
they were called servants. The official servants of a 
leading prince or chief are a long way from being 
chattel slaves. Eliezer and Hagar are never called 
slaves: and there is not the least intimation in the 
Sacred History that they ever occupied the position 
of slaves. A brief survey of the history of Hagai' 
will show that she was far enough from occupying 
the position of a chattel slave. 

Sarah, finding herself barren, and despairing of 
seeing the promise fulfilled of a numerous seed, un- 
dertook to remedy the difiiculty, according to the 
custom of the princes of the times, by seeking to 
obtain children by her Egyptian handmaid. . This 
may appear to us moderns, now that the earth is 
crowded with people, and infanticide common, and 
barrenness is regarded as a favor rather than other- 
wise, as a very foolish procedure. But in order to 
understand it fully, we need to remember, that, in 
the early ages, the desire of a numerous offspring 
was one of the strongest sentiments pervading the 
minds of the people. As a public sentiment, the 
desire of perpetuating name and family was over- 
whelming. In modern times, even, this sentiment 
sometimes becomes very strong. Under its influ- 
ence the great Napoleon committed the same mis- 
take which Sarah, the princess of Abraham, did, and 
upon that mistake dashed his fortunes to fragments, 
Sarah was determined to remedy the calamity and 
disgrace of her barrenness, to have the promise ful- 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 67 

filled, and to secure seed, and the perpetuity of the 
family. Abraham was carried away with the plan, 
though it is manifest that he was afterward sorely 
rebuked by the Almighty for his weakness and un- 
belief. So Sarah "took Hagar, her maid, the Egyp- 
tian, and gave her to her husband Abram, to be his 
wdfe." Hagar is called "the Egyptian," as denoting 
her origin, not by way of reproach, but by way of 
honor. Egypt was then the most powerful and hon- 
orable nation in the world, and to be an Egyptian, 
at that time, was a most honorable distinction, much 
as it was afterward to be a Roman, when Rome came 
to be in the ascendant. And Hagar, the high-born 
and proud Egyptian, maid of honor to the princess 
Sarah, became x\braham's wife, and she bare him a 
son. Now, abating the first mistake, this was an 
honorable transaction. Its object was to secure heir- 
ship in the family. But it is morally certain that 
Sarah, the princess, would never have given to Abra- 
ham, her lord, a mighty prince of the land, a slave 
for such a purpose as this ; and that Abraham would 
never have accepted of a ono-e slave for such a pur- 
pose. It is infinitely absurd to suppose this. The 
first mistake being granted and remembered, it is 
absolutely certain that Sarah would select for Abra- 
ham the lady highest in honor, and esteem, and 
rank in the household. Hence she gave him "to be 
his wife" — to occupy, for the time being, the same 
place in relation to Abraham which she herself, a 
princess, occupied, not a slave, but her own chosen 
handmaid, Hagar, of the rich and noble Egyptian 



68 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

stock. The object was to secure honorable heirship 
ill the family. How absurd to suppose, that in the 
household of a mighty prince, a slave would be se- 
lected for such a purpose ! 

But when the honor of being the mother of the 
Abrahamic nation appeared likely to be transferred 
from the true princess and wife, to Hagar, Sarah 
began to see her mistake. To secure this honor for 
herself, was the object of this maneuver; but when 
the thing was done, Sarah's eyes were opened to see 
how the matter would eventuate, and that this plan 
would really supplant herself, and make Hagar the 
princess and mother of Israel. She appealed to Abra- 
ham for redress. But after things had proceeded 
thus far, what could he do by way of redress ? His 
reply, however, is magnanimous, and fully exhonor- 
ates him from all base and ignoble desires in this 
whole affair. " Behold thy maid is in thy hand; do 
to her as it pleaseth thee." ' The plan was yours 
from the outset ; at your request I yielded to it, and 
only as far as you desired; you can do what you 
choose with Hagar ; it was great folly in us both ; 
whatever you can do to repair the mischief, you are 
at full liberty to do ; I have no claim upon Hagar, 
and do not wish to have any ; the Lord Jehovah for- 
give this our unbelief and foolishness ! ' Sarah, the 
prime agent in this wickedness, chagrined and pi'o- 
voked, sought relief, human-nature-like, by trying 
to degrade Hagar. She bore the abuse of her queenly 
mistress as long as she well could, and then, just 
exactly when it pleased her, she left Abraham's house- 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 69 

holt], to take care of herself. She, doubtless, had 
had her share in the wickedness involved in this un- 
happy affair, and so it was fit that she should have 
some share in the mischiefs resultino;. But let it 
evermore be remembered that Hagar left her adopted 
household a free woman, just when she pleased, and 
went whithersoever she would ; and it does not ap- 
pear that there was any slave-hunt to catch her, or 
bring her back. 

This piece of wickedness, the result of a mistaken 
notion at the outset, was a terrible blow to the hap- 
piness of the Patriarch's family. But after the thing 
was done, it could not be undone or altered. The 
only question then was, What could be done to rem- 
edy it? God had far-reaching purposes concerning 
this son of Abraham, by Hagar, though he was by 
no means the true heir. Hence the anc-el of the 
Lord, that met her in the wilderness, directed her 
to return to Abraham's household, and if she re- 
turned, of course, she must acknowledge Sarah as 
first princess in the family, and submit to her au- 
thority as superior. As a female member of the 
household, she must be subject to her; she must 
'' submit herself under her hands." Although her 
position had been a high and honorable one, never- 
theless, she must be subject to the female head of 
the clan. In all this, there is not the least intima- 
tion that she was to be put into, or occupy, the place 
of a slave. So Hagar, of genuine Egyptian blood, 
became the mother of that wonderful race, the Ish- 
maelites, next in honor and rank in the Abrahamic 



70 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

family, to Sarah, tlio true princess, and mother of 
that still more wonderful people, the Jews, from 
whom, as concerning the flesh, our Lord and Savior 
sprang. 

Note. — Effort is sometimes made to convict Abra- 
ham and Sarah of slaveholding, in the case of Hagar 
on the ground of what the apostle Paul says of Hagar, 
as a ''bondwoman," in the Epistle to the Galatians. 
Our English translation makes him call her a " bond- 
woman." But this is not calling her a "slave." He 
might have contemplated her as a "bondwoman," in 
a variety of senses, without regarding her at all as a 
slave bondwoman. Indeed, a little careful examina- 
tion shows, at once, that Paul regarded Hagar as in 
some particular sense a "bondwoman," as she was, 
but not at all as a "slave bondwoman," as she was 
not. The Greek word which he applies to her, and 
which is translated " bo7idwoman" is never used 
elsewhere in the New Testament to mean a slave, or 
any thing like it. That word is Ttmdiaxrj, paidiskee, 
and properly means a girl, or young maiden. This 
word occurs only in seven other passages in the New 
Testament; to all of which we will refer, in order 
that the reader may see for himself what the usage 
is. Matt, xxvi : 69—" Now Peter sat without in the 
palace: and a 'damsel' came unto him, saying. Thou 
also wast with Jesus of Galilee." Mark xiv : 66, 
69 — "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, 
there cometh one of the ' maids ' of the high priest." 
"And a 'maid' saw him again," etc. Luke xiv; 45 



PATRIAr.CHAL SERVITUDE. 71 

. — "And shall beo-in to beat tlie men-servants and 
' maidens,'" etc. xxii : 56 — " But a certain ' maicZ ' 
beheld him [Peter] as he sat by the fire/' etc. 
John xviii : 17 — "Then saith the 'damsel' that 
kept the door unto Peter," etc. Acts xii : 13 — "A 
' damsel' came to hearken named Rhoda," etc. xvi : 
16 — " And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a 
certain ' damsel ' possessed with a spirit of divination 
met us," etc. 

These passages embrace all the places in the New 
Testament where the word which Paul applies to 
Hagar in Galatians, and which is translated "bond- 
woman," occurs. If the reader will bear in mind 
the fact, stated by Kitto, that slavery did not exist 
in the land of Judah at the time the events alluded 
to in these passages took place, he will see, at once, 
that there is not, in any of them, the remotest possible 
allusion to slave or slavery. In a laud of freedom 
* damsel ' does not mean slave. The Septuagint trans- 
lation of the Old Testament applies this same word 
to Ruth, in the Book of Ruth, iv : 12, who, surely, 
was not a slave, though Boaz docs say he "pur- 
chased" her ; not, indeed, to be his slave, but "fo he 
his ivife!" There is, therefore, not the least sha- 
dow of evidence that Paul had the most distant 
reference to slave or slavery in what he says of 
Hagar in his Epistle to the Galatians. And besides 
this testimony from the usage of words, we are to 
remember that no Jew, as we have already seen, would 
ever think of regarding the mother of Ishmael as a 
slave, much less such a Hebrew writer as was Saint 



72 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

Paul. The idea of slave was an exotic in the ancient 
Hebrew mind, never sufficiently naturalized to it to 
have a Hebrew word to express it. It is a gross 
and total mistake to be looking for slavery at every 
crook and turn of Bible language. Its writers all 
wrote under the light and liberty of freedom. Slav- 
ery was a thing almost wholly unknown to them. 
They were unacquainted with it : they were not fami- 
liar with it. The apostle Paul uses language, as do 
all the writers of the Bible, not in the base South 
Carolina sense, but in the ancient, free, Hebrew sense. 

Sec. 2,.— Gen. xvii : 12-27. 

Verse 12. "And he that is eight days old shall 
be circumcised among you, every man-child in your 
generations, he that is born in the house, or bought 
with money of any stranger which is not of thy 
seed." This verse is found in the middle of the his- 
tory of the institution of the rite of circumcision. 
We beg leave to quote the passage entire, from the 
9th verse to the 14th inclusive : 

"9. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my 
covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee, in their 
generations. 

" 10. Tiiis is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between 
me and you, and thy seed after thee; Every man-child among 
you sliall be circumcised. 

"11. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; 
and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 

" 12. And ho that is eifiht days old shall be circumcised 
among you, every man-child in your generations ; ho that is 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE, 73 

born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, 
which is not of thy seed. 

"13. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought 
with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my cove- 
nant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 

"14. And the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of hia 
foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut ofi" from 
his people; he hath broken my covenant." 

This is the Mosaic account of the institution of 
the rite of circumcision. The rite itself is only a 
"token/' sign, or seal of a ''covenant." 

One of the fundamental characteristics of this rite 
was, that it should include every male in the Abra- 
hamic household. In making the rite universal, 
without exception as to the males in the Abrahamic 
household, allusion is distinctly made, in the 12th 
and 13th verses, to the different elements of that, 
household. Three distinct classes of persons are de- 
signated, as embracing the whole circle of the house- 
hold ; namely, (1,) the children proper ; (2,) children 
"born in the house," not of the family proper; (3,) 
and those bought Avith money, which were of foreign 
blood. These three classes of persons belonged to 
the Patriarchal household, and were members of it ; 
hence they are distinctly designated in this account 
of the institution of the rite of circumcision. The 
language here used was not designed to describe 
particularly the social status, or condition of these 
several classes ; but rather to refer to them as exist- 
ing classes, all of which were to be included in the 
rite of circumcision. The object of the writer in 
7 



74 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED, 

referring to these several classes, manifestly was, 
simply to include all the elements of the Patriarchal 
household in the rite of circumcision. The phrase, 
"bought with money," or more accurately, " the pur- 
chase of silver," designates, with sufficient clearness, 
one class of persons belonging to the household, but 
determines nothing, as we have seen, in regard to 
the social condition of those so bought. Free serv- 
ants could be "the purchase of silver" just as well 
as slave servants. For we learn from other sources, 
that this phrase, "bought with money," commonly 
referred to services, and not to persons, in the sense 
of property, at all; and hence the presumption 
always is, when this phrase is used in regard to 
servants, that it refers to free servants, whose serv- 
ices have been bought of themselves. 

The peculiar phraseology of our translation of the 
12th verse of this seventeenth chapter of Genesis, is 
liable to an erroneous interpretation. The phrase, 
" bought with money of any stranger, which is not of 
thy seed," may be understood as referring to persons 
bought of others, a third party, who were the sellers. 
But this is manifestly not the meaning of the original 
Hebrew. T.he true meaning is that given by Prof. 
Bush, in his translation of this passage, which is as 
follows: "A son of eight days old shall be circum- 
cised unto you ; every male in your generations, the 
born in the house, and the purchase of silver, from, 
that is, even or including every son of the stranger, 
which is not of thy seed." On this passage he also 
remarks: "This passage affords no countenance to 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 75 

the idea of Abraham's having bought slaves of others 
who claimed an ownership in them." The idea of 
a third party, of whom the individuals referred to 
were bought, does not belong to the passage at all. 
Prof. J. Morgan, D. D., of Oberlin College, Ohio, 
gives the following translation of this same verse : 
" He that is eight days old shall be circumcised 
among you, every male of your generations, the 
house-born and the money-purchase of any stranger, 
who is not of thy seed." In regard to the phrase, 
"of any stranger," he remarks, that it "denotes the 
origin or source of the purchased servant, but does 
not determine the seller, who, for aught this expres- 
sion certainly shows, might be the purchased one 
himself." Other authorities and opinions might be 
given to the same effect. The commentary habit 
of making this passage teach that Abraham had 
chattel slaves, is sheer mistake foisted upon God's 
pure Bible out of that enormous pro-slavery sink, 
modern pro-slavery prejudice. This passage of Scrip- 
ture only innocently refers to the different elements 
which entered into the Patriarchal household, for 
the purpose of making the rite of circumcision in- 
clude the whole, without exception. Of precisely 
the same import is the 27th verse of this same chap- 
ter, a literal translation of which is as follows : "And 
all the men of his house, the home-born, and the 
purchase of money from with the stranger, were cir- 
cumcised with him." 

These passages are interesting as giving us a clue 
to the constitution and several elements of the Pa- 



76 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

triarclial liouseliold. This constitution, as we have 
seen, grew out of the nature of the case, and the 
necessities of the times. These elements were the 
natural and necessary elements of the compound Pa- 
triarchal family. These elements, as we have before 
proved, were, of necessity, free elements, attached to 
the household in different ways, according to well 
understood and universal usages. They have no 
more to do with chattel slavery than they have to 
do with Indian pow-wows. To make slavery out of 
any of these elements is a simple gratuity, hatched in 
modern theological ovens, and made to pee]) to pacify 
the consciences of modern slaveholding criminals. 

Sec. 4. — JosejA. 

According to the current interpretation of the Old 
Testament Scriptures, Joseph must surely have been 
a slave. To doubt this, lays one open to suspicions 
of irreverence for the Bible, if not of downright in- 
fidelity. And here we make our confession. "We 
believe most fully that God has given to the world 
a veritable Bible : that that Bible has been preserved 
to and for the race : that the writings now known as 
the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures are that Bible : and 
we believe, moreover, that, according to this genuine 
Bible, Joseph, eleventh son of Jacob, true son of 
Isaac, promised son of Abraham, never was in the 
condition of a chattel slave, the current notion to the 
contrary notwithstanding. We believe that a care- 
ful and candid examination of the true Scripture 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 77 

account of Joseph, as given in the Book of Genesis, 
and alhided to elsewhere in the Bible, will show that 
Joseph was never considered as a slave either by 
those whom he served, or by himself. Our object 
in seeking to make this appear, is not so much to 
vindicate the Bible from pro-slavery interpretations, 
as to throw additional light upon the constitution of 
Patriarchal and primitive society, as being a state 
of society free from chattel slavery, and as having, 
in its stead, various forms of free servitude. Eight 
at this point lies the great mistake that has been 
made in the interpretation of the Old Testament 
Scriptures on the subject of slavery. Ignorance of 
the constitution and genius of Patriarchal and primi- 
tive society has converted ancient free servitude 
into modern chattel slavery, and so has foisted a 
monstrous and abominable perversion upon the Sa- 
cred Pecord, which absolutely threatens its utter 
subversion. 

'But if we admit that Joseph was really a slave, 
and was so held and treated, the pro-slavery side of 
the question gains nothing, inasmuch as the divine 
disapprobation is clearly expressed against all the 
oppressive treatment which Joseph received at the 
hand of his brethren and others. It is not, there- 
fore, to vindicate the history of Joseph from pro- 
slavery abuse, which, after all, is but a harmless 
abuse, that we enter upon its examination, but ra- 
ther, if possible, to set that history in its true light, 
as a help to a right understanding of the social 
status of the times. 



78 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED, 

" Now, Israel loved Joseph more than all his chil- 
dren, because he was the son of his old age:" but 
his brethren " envied " him and " hated " him. — 
Gen. xxxvii. When, therefore, their father Jacob 
sent Joseph to his brethren in Dotham, to see whether 
it was well with them and the flocks, they conspired 
against him and sought to kill him. The result of 
their conspiracy, however, was, that he was "sold" 
to the Ishmaelites, and by them taken down into 
Egypt and "sold" to " Potiphar, an officer of Pha- 
raoh's, and captain of the guard." Most persons 
who read this account, suppose, as a matter of course, 
that if Joseph was " sold " by one party, and " bought " 
by another, he was sold as a chattel slave, and bought 
as a chattel slave. They suppose this, because this 
is the modern sense of buying and selling, when ap- 
plied to persons. But this is purely a ])ro-slavery 
mistake. The fact of huying and selling, in ancient 
usages, proves nothing in regard to the condition 
into tvhieh the individuals were bought. Anciently, 
lathers " sold " their daughters to their intended 
husbands, for money: and men "bought" their in- 
tended wives, and paid money for them. But the 
fathers sold their daughters not into the condition 
of chattel slaves, but into the condition of reives : 
and the husbands bought their wives not into the 
condition of chattel slaves, but into the condition of 
wives : and the whole transaction had no more to do 
with chattel slavery, than it had with the man in the 
moon. In those times, "buying" and "selling" 
did not mean slavery, as now. In the early settle- 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 79 

ment of Virginia, the settlers being destitute of 
wives, English merchantmen brought over cargoes 
of young women from the mother country and sold 
them to the needy settlers for one hundred and 
twenty pounds of tobacco apiece. Sold them for 
what ? Slaves ? No : for wives. The buying and 
selling did not make them slaves. It only very in- 
nocently made them genuine wives — that is all. The 
buying and selling did not determine the condition 
or state into which they were bought. So the buy- 
ing and selling of Joseph determines nothing in 
regard to the condition into which he was bought. 
It is manifest that Joseph was sold by his brethren, 
not as a chattel slave, but as a hated and disagreeable 
member of the household, of whom they wished to be 
rid. Their object was to get rid of him, as an an- 
noyance. At first, they proposed to kill him; and, 
undoubtedly, would have killed him, if the special 
providence of God had not presented before them an- 
other method of getting him out of the way. Joseph 
was, doubtless, well aware of their intentions, and, in 
all probability, expressly consented to the disposition 
that was afterward made of him. Perhaps it was at 
his earnest solicitation, seconded by that of Judah, 
that they determined to shuffle him off to the Ish- 
maelites, who, being on their way to Egypt, would be 
likely to take him fully out of the way. Of course, 
if they could get a few pieces of silver in making 
the transfer, they would do it. They thus shuffled 
him off fi'om the family, not as their slave, but as 
a troublesome member. There is not the I'emotest 



80 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

shadow of evidence that the brethren of Joseph either 
regarded or sold him as a slave. They simply wished 
to get rid of him, to get him out of the household. 
So they thrust him out, and delivered him into the 
hands of an Ishmaelitish tribe, or caravan, who were 
traveling to Egypt. They were "merchantmen:" 
but not slave-traders, any more than the English 
merchantmen who carried the English ladies to Vir- 
ginia, and sold them for a hundred and twenty 
pounds of tobacco apiece, were slave-traders. There 
is not the most distant intimation in the Sacred His- 
tory that these Ishmaelites were merchantmen in 
slaves. They were merchantmen, traveling to Egypt, 
but not slave-dealers. 

The lad Joseph being thus forcibly thrust out, and 
forbidden to return on peril of his life, and being 
under the necessity of being somewhere connected 
with some household or tribe, or of being a solitary, 
wandering vagabond, and being forcibly delivered 
over, and transferred to the Ishmaelites, had no al- 
ternative but to go with them and be their servant : 
that is, belong to the company, or clan, as a bought- 
with-money servant. This forcible transfer did not 
make him a chattel slave. I have seen lads of much 
the same age, in free, Puritan New England, forcibly 
transferred from one family to another, and nobody 
ever dreamed of slavery in the case. The Ishmael- 
ites manifestly received Joseph as a bought-with- 
money servant: an unchattelized servant of that 
class, and by no means as a chattel slave. As such, 
they made a transfer of him for money to Potiphar, 



PATEIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 81 

chief marshal of Egypt. That he was so received by 
the Egyptian officer is manifest from the subsequent 
history. The Mosaic account proceeds to say, that 
"The Lord was with Joseph," in the house of his 
master, and " he was a prosperous vian." Not a 
good slave, but a "prosperous man." The whole 
record assumes that Joseph considered himself, and 
was recognized by others, as occupying the position 
of a free serving man, and not that of a slave. As 
a free serving man, he very speedly arose to the posi- 
tion of chief officer in the household of his master. 
Note the language : " And Joseph found grace in his 
sight, and he served him." "Served" him when? 
At the very time when he was highest in the confi- 
dence and favor of his master. At the hight of his 
prosperity in the house of his master he still " served." 
Served how ? as a slave ? By no means : but as first 
officer and manager of all that he had ! So the Eecord 
reads. Now this is never the course of aff"airs where 
the condition of things is that of chattel slavery. 
No slave bought with money, after the modern 
Southern method of buying, and in the Southern 
sense, could ever rise to be first officer in the house- 
hold of Major-Gen. Scott. Potiphar was chief mar- 
shal of the kingdom : Joseph was first officer and 
overseer in his house. This is not the history of a 
chattel slave. It never can be. It is the history of 
a recognized free man, attached to the house of Poti- 
phar, precisely in accordance with the custom of the 
times ; at first, indeed, as a bought-with-money serv- 
ant, but always as a goodly and prosperous man. 



82 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

And when Potiphar's wife accused Joseph falsely 
before his master, and his wrath was kindled against 
Joseph, Potiphar proceeds against him and punishes 
him altogether as a recognized man, and not as a de- 
graded, chattel slave. Joseph is not whipped and 
sent back to his slave task ; he is not sold off from 
the premises ; but he is put into the prison " where 
the king's prisoners were bound : " all as an unchat- 
telized man — as an official character guilty of crime, 
and not at all as a chattel slave. 

So, during all the time in which he was a prisoner, 
he appears as an unchattelized man-prisoner, and, 
in no respect, as a slave-prisoner. Joseph's history 
in prison is manifestly the history of a recognized 
free man ; forcibly thrust away, indeed, from his na- 
tive household and nation, and attached to a foreign 
family in a foreign land. It is a history impossible 
to a chattel slave. Notice Joseph's request to the 
chief butler: "But think on me when it shall be 
well with thee, and show kindness, I pray thee, unto 
me, and make mention of me unto Pharaoh, and 
bring me out of this house." And make mention 
of me unto Pharaoh ! What a request for a mere 
chattel slave, of foreign and hated blood, thrown into 
prison by the chief marshal of the kingdom, for as- 
serted, flagrant crime, to present to a high officer 
of the most })0weri"iil monarch that then pressed an 
earthly throne ! What had a miserable slave, in an 
Egyptian dungeon, to do with an Egyptian Pharaoh, 
in the days of Egyptian greatness and splendor? 
Who ever hcar<l of such a request as this from the 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE, 83 

jails or slave-pens of Washington finding its way 
up into the White House ? The truth is, this is his- 
tory that never belongs to slavery, and such as can 
belong only to freedom. If Joseph had been the 
slave property of Potiphar, he would have had more 
sense than to have made such a request as this : just 
as there is not a slave in all the South who has not 
more sense than to present such a request as this to 
any President of the United States. 

Well, time passes on, and Pharaoh has a remark- 
able dream. They send for Joseph to interpret it. 
In all the history that follows, there is not the least 
intimation or indication that Joseph was regarded 
as occupying the condition of a slave. Let him who 
doubts this statement find it, if he can. But mean- 
while, observe one or two incidental particulars. 
" iVnd it came to pass, at the end of tivo full years, 
that Pharaoh dreamed." Joseph, then, had been 
confined in the prison two full years, Did Potiphar 
lose these two full years of slave service ? Or did 
the royal treasury open its coff"ers, and grant him re- 
muneration ? Or what did poor Potiphar do about 
these two full years of slave service due him ? 
The history certainly leaves us in great darkness 
and trouble concerning Potiphar's pay. It does not 
even say one word about this slaveholder's whining 
over his loss. Strange that he did not think to tie 
up this Hebrew dog, and give him a sound flogging, 
and send him back to his work again, and so save 
these two full years of slave labor. A blundering 



84 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

fellow he, for chief marshal of mighty Egypt, and 
strangely destitute of modern wit. 

" Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they 
brought him hastily out of the dungeon: and he 
shaved himself and changed his raiment and came 
in unto Pharaoh." Indeed! What business had 
this piece of Potiphar's property with the toilet and 
changes of raiment ? AVhat odds does it make with 
the miserable slave how he appears before the great 
ones of earth ? and where did Joseph get his changes 
of raiment? "Were there abolitionists in Egypt in 
those days to make the needed contribution? Or 
did master slaveholding Potiphar expect a big, round 
sum for this job of dream-interpretation, and so 
rigged Joe out in court-style, especially for the occa- 
sion ? When a similar aflair is got up at the " White 
House," "may I be there to see!" 

We beseech the reader to turn to the forty-first 
chapter of Genesis, and read carefully the whole chap- 
ter through, with this one inquiry in his mind: " Is 
this the history of a chattel slave, or is it the history 
of a free man ? " Stop, we pray thee, right here, and 
get your Bible and read the whole chapter, and we 
are sure that you will be ready to say with us, that 
such history as this never did and never can belong 
to slavery. Do not say that Joseph must have been 
a slave after all. There is no "must" about it, 
except what modern pro-slavery prejudice has af- 
fixed to the case. A careful examination of the 
history, in the light of the social arrangements of 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 85 

society in those early times, before oppression and 
trespass upon personal rights had extended to chat- 
telism, shows at once that slavery was not there. 
And if American slavery should exist ten thousand 
years, we should have neither fear, nor hope, that 
such a piece of history as this would ever turn up. 
There is not the least evidence in all the history of 
Joseph, that he was ever treated or regarded in 
Egypt as a chattel slave. His interview with Pha- 
raoh has all the characteristics of an interview of a 
free man with a monarch acknowledging him as 
such. His bearing is noble, manly, and dignified. 
Base slavery is not there. If it had been, the king's 
ring had never been put upon Joseph's hand, the 
golden chain had never been put about his neck, 
and the royal vestures had never clothed his goodly 
person. Slavery would have sent him sneaking off 
to his kennel and to his pack-horse service, to wear 
his life out in dehumanizing work, and subserviency 
to the robber-will of another, without pay. 

Note. — In the 105th Psalm, commencing at the 
17th verse, occurs the following passage : " He sent 
a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a 
servant : Whose feet they hurt with fetters : he was 
laid in iron : Until the time that his word came : 
the word of the Lord tried him. The king sent and 
loosed him : even the ruler of the people, and let 
him go free. He made him lord of his house, and 
ruler of his substance : To bind his princes at his 
pleasure : and teach his senators wisdom." 



86- BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

" Who was sold for a servant." Some of the com- 
mentators say he was sold for a slave. But this 
passage does not say that : nor is that said anywhere 
in the Bible, This Psalm says he was sold for a 
servant: whether for a slave servant, or for a free 
servant, it does not specify. It is great hermeneii- 
tical blundering to give a specific and limited sense 
to a general term when there is nothing in the con- 
nection to demand it. Even if Joseph was a slave, 
there is no authority for making this Psalm say so : 
for it does not say so, any more than the Sacred 
Kecord says that Moses, and David, and Paul, were 
slaves. It says truly, that Joseph was sold for a 
servant, but what kind of a servant, it does not say. 
It is only by assuming that Joseph icas a slave, that 
the commentators make this passage from the Psalms 
call Joseph a slave. The passage itself says no such 
thing. You might just as well assume that Joseph 
was a porter-servant in some ancient Egyptian hotel, 
and translate: "He was sold for a porter;" or that 
he was a sexton-servant, and translate : " He was 
Bold for a sexton ;" as to assume that he was a slave- 
servant, and translate : " He was sold for a slave." 

" Whose feet they hurt with fetters: he was laid 
in iron : Until the time that his word came : the 
word of the Lord tried him." All this refers un- 
questionably to the time when he was in prison : 
and hence has nothing to do with his condition as a 
servant, whether he was a slave or not. " Whose 
feet tlicyXmvt with fetters." Not Potiphar, his mas- 
ter, as a slaveholder, but, as Dr. Alexander explains: 



PATRIAECHAL SERVITUDE. 87 

"tlie Egyptians, or his gaolers." The king sent and 
loosed him : even the ruler of the people, and let 
him go free." In regard to this verse, Dr. Alexan- 
der also says : " Both verbs strictly apply to the re- 
moval of his fetters, the first meaning properly to 
knock off, the other to open for the purpose of re- 
moving." The sense, then, of this, is simply that 
the king, Pharaoh, having doubtless become satisfied 
of Joseph's innocence, brought him out of prison. 
There is not the least imaginable allusion to emanci- 
pating him as a slave. An infinitely shallow place 
this, to fish for Bible slavery. 

These verses allude to Joseph just as if he was a 
free man, and not at all as if he was a slave. They 
refer to the fact that he was sold for a servant, that 
he w^as imprisoned and fettered, and lay there for 
the trial of his faith till the king sent and brought 
him out ; and that Pharaoh placed him next to the 
throne as lord of his house and ruler of Egypt : all 
just as if Joseph was, all the while, a free man, and 
not at all as if he was a slave. And if our minds 
had not become accustomed to pro-slavery ideas and 
practices, and debauched with pro-slavery interpre- 
tations of the Word of God, we should no more 
think of looking for slavery in such passages of 
Scripture as this, than we should in the valediction 
at the end of Wilberforce's letters: "Your obedient 
servant." It would be a great deliverance indeed, if 
the American mind could be relieved of the illusion 
that servant means slave. This would let great light 
into a very dark place. 



88 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAAIINED. 



CHAPTER IX. 

A WONDERFUL AND SUBLIME PROPHECY 

" For I know him, that he will command his chil- 
dren and his household after him, and they shall 
keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judg- 
ment ; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that 
which he hath spoken of him." — Gen. xviii : 19. 

This is the word of the Lord, concerning Abra- 
ham. It is both testimony to present fact, and pro- 
phecy in regard to the future. 

It seems to have been the divine arrangement in 
populating the earth after the flood, that particular 
individuals should be representative fathers of fami- 
lies, tribes, peoples, and nations. Such individuals 
were endowed with the power of national progeni- 
ture. As type progenitors, they gave cast and char- 
acter to the whole line of their posterity. Canaan 
begat Canaanites — children after his own likeness. 
Ishmael had Ishmaelites for sons and daughters in 
all after time. So of other representative and type 
men of antiquity. They were fathers and founders 
of races, carrying their own image and superscrip- 
tion to all generations. 

To this class of venerable ancients, Abraham be- 
longed, lie was the father and founder of a pecu- 



PATRIAECnAL SERVITUDE. 89 

liar and wonderful people. His children, the Jews, 
can not be mistaken. They are still, always have 
been, and, doubtless, always will be, strongly Abra- 
lianiic. Without controversy, they all have Abraham 
for their father. And notwithstanding the present 
dispersion and national degradation of the Jews^ it 
must be confessed that Abraham, their great father, 
stands apart from all the rest of the national patri- 
archs of antiquity, as the noblest specimen of a type- 
progenitor and nation-founder of which the nations 
can boast. His name, as connected with the world's 
history, is more sacred and venerable than that of 
any other ancient Patriarch known to us. 

Now, the grand characteristic which distinguishes 
him above all other national patriarchs of the an- 
cient times, is that which is contained in the remark- 
able declaration concerning him, quoted at the head 
of this chapter. This characteristic embraced in it 
two fundamental particulars : (1,) True obedience 
to God as supreme; and (2,) True judgment and 
justice toward man. "And they shall keep the way 
of the Lord to do justice and judgment." These 
were fundamental elements in Abraham's character, 
distinguishing and exalting him above all other na- 
tion-builders of antiquity. On the basis of these 
elements, he established his household. The mem- 
bers thereof, with himself at the head, kept " the 
way of the Lord," and did justice and judgment. 

The true righteousness of obedience to the Lord 
Jehovah of hosts, and of upright judgment and just- 
ice to man, was the Abrahamic peculiarity^ and by 



90 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

it he, as ancestral head, and his posterity after him, 
were to be distinguished from all other families and 
nations. True Jehovah worship and love, and true 
man worship and love, were thus to be, from the 
beginning, the peculiarity of the Abrahamic race. 
This was the element of separation, this the mark 
of distinction, this the type of character which dis- 
tinguished the great Patriarch himself, and which 
was to descend in the line of his posterity, and ulti- 
mately, by spiritual succession, to reach all the fam- 
ilies of the earth. 

Abraham's Jehovah worship was the true religion, 
testified to as such by both Jesus Christ and his 
Apostles. Abraham's "justice to man" was the true 
philanthropy, including all proper liberty to all, and 
excluding all oppression, and all wrong. Thus Ke- 
LiGiON and Liberty constituted the Abrahamic bap- 
tism, the Abrahamic mark of separation, the national 
characteristic of the Abrahamic stock. 

If, now, from the point in the history of the ages 
where we stand to day, we undertake to trace back 
true religion and liberty among men, the clue, with 
various windings through broad and beautiful val- 
leys, along narrow defiles, steep, rugged, and fright- 
ful, over hilltops, radiant with light and glory, and 
across dark and gloomy swamps, foul with the stench 
of every poison, will lead us, at last, to the door of 
the tent of him, of whom God had said of old, " For 
I know him, that he will command his children and 
his household after him, and they shall keep the way 
of the I/ord, to do justice and judgment." Or, if wo 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 91 

go back to Abraham's day, and take up the Abra- 
liamic foith, embracing obedience to God, and justice 
to man, and trace it downward througli the ages, 
we shall find it branching out among the nations, 
and including all the true religion and liberty that 
has prevailed on the earth. And so we shall find 
the germ, the root-stock, of all earth's true religion 
and liberty to have been the faith described in our 
text-verse, which dwelt in father Abraham. This 
faith had in it the power of an endless life. It was 
destined to expand, and finally fill the earth. 

In the wise administration of the Divine Govern- 
ment, this Abrahamic germ of true religion and lib- 
erty, this Abrahamic faith, embracing in it that 
pure worship of the living God, which seeks truly 
to keep the righteous way of the Lord, and that true 
brotherhood love, which seeks to do justice to indi- 
vidual men in the deep sense of absolute truth, was 
destined to descend for many generations, almost 
exclusively in the line of the natural descendants of 
Abraham, the Jews. But the living power of this 
root-stock of godliness and justice kept idolatry and 
slavery out of the great Patriarch's own household ; 
it kept these great iniquities, except as occasional 
crimes, out of the Hebrew family and nation, in all 
after generations. Neither of these abominations 
could possibly exist in conjunction with the Abra- 
hamic godliness and justice. They never did. 

But it is a remarkable fact in the history of other 
nations, families, and races, that, as they multiplied 
and advanced, they degenerated into gross and hope- 



92 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

less idolatry, and within them the worst forms of 
oppression prevailed, as established practices. In 
them, the poor, and the weak, the common people, 
were degraded, oppressed, and enslaved by the rich 
and powerful, and for them there was no help. So- 
ciety became broken up into castes and aristocra- 
cies, powers and laws fell into the hands of the 
higher and stronger, who were not slow to compel 
the lower and weaker to toil for them, and serve 
them. But, in Israel, the power of the Abrahamic 
faith of godliness and justice secured the true wor- 
ship, and personal liberty and manhood for every 
individual soul. It protected the poor and weak, 
and demanded justice for them, and so made slavery 
impossible. 

In process of time, Messiah came, and the true 
kingdom of Israel, with its Abrahamic faith of god- 
liness and justice, was taken from the Jews, and 
given to the Gentiles. According to the Scriptures, 
the Abrahamic faith was identical with the Gospel 
faith. The Abrahamic faith, then, illuminated and 
enlarged by the coming and teachings of Christ, 
transferred to the Gentiles, made a new spiritual 
Israel among the Gentiles, identical in faith and sub- 
stance with spiritual Israel of old, among the Jews. 
So, then, Abraham "is the father of us all," who 
"keep the way of the Lord," and "do justice and 
judgment" to men, under both dispensations, both 
Jews and Gentiles. And as the living power of the 
Abrahamic faith, the root-stock of godliness and 
justice among men, kept slavery and idolatry, ex- 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 93 

cept as occasional crimes, out of the Hebrew family 
and nation, so the expansion of this faith in the 
gospel of Jesus, Abraham's son, is destined to de- 
stroy slavery and idolatry everywhere, and ulti- 
mately to bring the entire race, wandering Jews 
and benighted Gentiles, round back to the true 
Abrahamic worship, love, and justice. When Jeho- 
vah said, " I know him, that he will command his 
children and his household after him, and they shall 
keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judg- 
ment, that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that 
which he hath spoken of him," Abraham was con- 
stituted the spiritual father of all the true Jehovah' 
worshipers, man lovers, and free peoples under 
heaven. At the same time, the decree went forth 
out of the mouth of the Lord, that true religion and 
true liberty should live and flourish on the earth. 
The foundations of an everlasting kingdom were then 
laid, having this seal that the word of the Lord 
standeth sure. Kingdoms and thrones may be sub- 
verted and disappear, old earths and old heavens 
may pass away with a great noise, the sun may be 
darkened, and the moon turned into blood, but the 
true Abrahamic, Apostolic, Puritanic, Evangelical 
faith, obedience to God, and justice to man, can never 
be shaken. This great and sublime pledge God gave 
to Abraham, and to the universe, when he uttered 
the declaration and prophecy which we are now con- 
templating. 

Obedience to God and justice to man, that is the 
Abrahamic creed, that is the Gospel creed, that is 



94 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

the creed of the universal kingdom of God. It was 
this creed, adopted and practiced in Abraham's fam- 
ily, that kept idolatry and slavery out of it, and 
true worship and freedom in it, and so made it a 
model, not only for the Jewish nation, but for the 
world; this same creed, everywhere underlying the 
Mosaic code, kept idolatry and slavery out of the 
Jewish nation ; and this same creed, by virtue of its 
own spiritual life-power, keeps slavery out of the 
circle of a pure gospel faith and practice everywhere. 
And when this sublime Abrahamic, evangelical, rad- 
ically anti-slavery creed, has accomplished its whole 
great mission on the earth, the mission which it 
began in Abraham and his household, the gospel 
prayer, "Thy kingdom come," will be answered. 
Idolatry and slavery will no more curse the earth. 
The blessing of Abraham will then be upon all the 
families of the earth. 

Such, as we understand it, is the import, and such 
the breadth of this testimony in regard to Abraham. 
Eeligion and liberty had a grand exemplification in 
the old Patriarch's household, such as made it iit 
that he should bo made the divinely constituted 
father and founder, not merely of the Jewish nation, 
but of that more peculiar, holier, and more royal 
nation, whose badge of citizenship is supreme love 
to God, and equal and impartial love to man. 

And we here record our solemn protest as against 
a great wrong, against that stupendous perversion 
of the Divine Word, which makes Abraham, the 
divinely constituted father and founder of earth's 



PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE. 95 

true religion and liberty, the father and founder of 
earth's most tremendous villainy, chattel slavery. 
We devoutly hope there is repentance and forgive- 
ness somewhere for those who have handled the 
Word of God so badly as to have ''added" this ruin- 
ous perversion "to the things that are written" in 
the Holy Book. 



CHAPTER X. 



ANCIENT DARKNESS AND MODERN LIGHT — MODERN 
DARKNESS AND ANCIENT LIGHT. 

A CERTAIN writer has remarked that it has been 
aptly said that ''if Abraham were now living among 
us he would be put in the penitentiary for bigamy." 
Possibly. But if the shade of the old Patriarch 
should now stand forth in our presence, and give his 
testimony concerning modern affairs, we venture the 
opinion that he would not hesitate to testify that 
" if certain slaveholding doctors of theology in young 
America had lived in his day, they would have been 
stoned to death for stealing men and women and 
making merchandise of them," 

And when we pertly ask, " Shall we go back to 
study morality in the twilight of the Patriarchal 
age ? " we fancy we can hear the rebound of the 
stern echo from their venerable souls, "Shall we, to 
whom Jehovah spoke face to face, go forward to the 



96 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

twilight darkness of American slaveholding ethics, 
to be instructed in morality? and to learn true just- 
ice and judgment? 



CHAPTER XI. 

CONDITION OF THE JEWS IN EGYPT. 

We devote a section to this topic chiefly for the 
purpose of correcting a very general mistake. This 
mistake has been corrected repeatedly by others; 
but it still prevails, and the correction needs to bo 
repeated. It is very common for people to suppose 
that the condition of the Jews in Egypt, in the time 
of Moses, was that of chattel slavery. This suppos- 
ition arises, probably, from the fact that the terms 
employed to describe the oppressions of the Hebrews 
in Egypt, are such as have been commonly under- 
stood to refer to a state of chattel slavery. The 
mischief of this supposition lies in the fact that 
people conclude that if the Hebrews were slaves in 
Egypt, then, when the language which is applied to 
them in describing their condition is applied to 
others, they also must have been slaves. The reason- 
ing is, that if the Hebrews in Egypt, in the days 
of Moses, were slaves, and so were called " bondmen," 
then all others who are called "bondmen" were 
slaves. 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 97 

But all this is an entire mistake, as lias been 
most abundantly and conclusively shown by Mr- 
Weld, Mr. Barnes, and others. The Hebrews were 
not chattel slaves in Egypt, but oppressed freemen : 
and hence all the language that is applied to them 
is such as can be properly applied to freemen. The 
use of such language is nowhere evidence that those 
to whom it was applied were chattel slaves. 

We quote, mostly from the writers alluded to 
above, the following brief summary of considera- 
tions which prove, beyond all contradiction, that 
the Hebrews were not held as chattel slaves by the 
Egyptians. 

(1.) The Israelites were not dispersed among the 
families of Egypt, but formed a separate community. 
Gen. Ivi: 34; Ex. viii: 22,24; ix: 26; x:23; xi: 7; 
iv: 29; ii: 9; xvi: 22; xvii: 5; vi: 14. (2.) They 
had the exclusive possession of the land of Goshen, 
the best part of the land of Egypt. Gen. Iv: 18; 
Ivii: 6, 11, 27; Ex. viii: 22; ix: 26; xii: 4. Go- 
shen must have been at a considerable distance from 
those parts of Egypt inhabited by the Egyptians. 
(3.) They lived in permanent dwellings. These were 
houses and not tents. In Ex. xii: 7, 22, the two 
side posts, and the upper door posts, and the lintel 
of the houses are mentioned. Each family seems 
to have occupied a house hy itself. Acts vii: 20. 
(4.) They owned "flocks and herds" and ''very 
much cattle." Ex. xii : 4, 6, 32, 37, 38. From the 
fact that "every man" was commanded to kill either 
a lamb or a kid, one year old, for the Passover, be- 
9 



98 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

fore tlie people left Egypt, we infer that even the 
poorest of Israelites owned a flock either of sheep 
or goats. (5.) They had their own form of govern- 
ment, and preserved their tribe and family divisions, 
and their internal organization throughout, though 
still a province of Egypt and tributary to it. Ex. 
ii: 1; xii: 19, 21; vi: 14, 25; v: 19; iii: 16, 18. 
(6.) They had, in considerable measure, the disposal of 
their own time. Ex. iii : 16, 18 ; xii : 6 ; ii : 9 ; iv : 
27, 29-31. (7.) They were all armed. Ex. xxxii : 27. 
(8.) All the females seem to have known something 
of domestic refinements. They were familiar with 
instruments of music, and skilled in the working of 
fine fabrics, Ex. xv : 20 ; xxxv : 25, 26 ; and both 
males and females were able to read and write. 
Deut. xi: 18-20; xvii: 19; xxvii : 3. (9.) Service 
seems to have been exacted from none but adult 
males. Nothing is said from which the bond serv- 
ice of females could be inferred ; the hiding of Moses 
three months by his mother, and the payment of 
wages to her by Pharaoh's daughter, go against such 
a supposition. Ex. ii: 29. (10.) Their food was 
abundant, and of great variety. Ex. xii: 15, 39. 

"Probably but a small portion of the people were 
in the service of the Egyptians at any one time. 
Ex. ix : 26. Besides, when Eastern nations em- 
ployed tributaries, it was as now, in the use of the 
levy, requiring them to furnish a given quota, drafted 
off periodically, so that comparatively but a small 
portion of the nation would be absent at any one 
time. The adult males of the Israelites were proba- 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 09 

bly divided into companies, "vvliicli relieved each 
other at stated intervals of weeks or months." 

The above presents, beyond all question, a correct 
view of the condition of the Israelites in Egypt in 
the time of Moses. They were tributaries to the 
Egyptian government ; and a tax, in labor or other- 
wise, was laid upon them for the benefit of that 
government, which was increased till it became in- 
supportable. It was in this way, and not as chattel 
slaves, that they were oppressed in Egypt. They 
were a nation of unchattelized freemen oppressed 
with a grievous burden of governmental exactions, 
unrighteous, indeed, and designed to crush them. 
Now this oppression, which never reached the extent 
of chattel slavery, is everywhere condemned in the 
Bible in the strongest language. The Israelites are 
frequently referred to it, as an example of warning 
to them, that they should not vex or oppress the 
stranger. Terrible judgments were visited upon the 
Egyptians for practicing it. How, then, can we 
believe, that a few months later, the same Almighty 
Jehovah, who whelmed the Egyptians in the Bed Sea 
for their wickedness in thus oppressing the Israelites, 
expressly permitted, and positively ordered them, 
to reduce to a worse bondage, whomsoever of the 
heathen they might please ? But this we must 
believe and swallow, if the sort of servitude which 
is regulated in the Mosaic code was chattel slavery. 
MrjduocTo I God forbid ! 

And our belief can not be much better if it was 
any sort of oppressive servitude. Nay, verily. The 



100 BIBLE SEEVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

overthrow of Pharaoh and his hosts in the waters of 
the Bed Sea is a divine guarantee that no provision 
will be found in the Mosaic code for any sort of 
oppression or trespass upon manhood rights. The 
wrath that gleamed forth from the awful cloud back 
upon the Egyptian hosts as they approached the 
fatal shore, is the same wrath which the Word of 
God everywhere thunders across the track of all 
oppression. 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE MOSAIC CODE, 

Introduction. 



Moses, and the Jews of his day, were the direct 
and acknowledged descendants of the old Jewish 
Patriarchs. Their customs, habits, and modes of 
thought w^ere, of course, strongly Abrahamic and 
Patriarchal. The family model which they had re- 
ceived from their fathers, with their great father, 
Abraham, at the head, was the compound Patri- 
archal household. The legislation of Moses was 
designed, of course, to meet and match this family 
arrangement, and the state of society growing out 
of it. This legislation will meet and match no other 
form of society. 

Let it bo especially noticed here, that no other 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 101 

classes of servants are recognized in the Mosaic 
code than those which are aUuded to in the Patri- 
archal history. The legislation of Moses was for 
the Hebrew tribe, with its Abrahamic family con- 
stitution. It sought to regulate the free Jewish 
household, without disturbing the Patriarchal ten- 
dency which still existed among the people. That 
tendency, which was rather cherished than other- 
wise, by Moses, though considerably limited and 
circumscribed, was, as we have seen, to a large 
household, with all the members closely allied and 
devoted to the head or Patriarch thereof. These 
several classes of attaches, called servants, which 
made up the Patriarchal household, were all recog- 
nized, as we shall see, in the Mosaic legislation, and 
their rights carefully provided for and guarded. 



102 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

PARTICULAR EXAMINATION OF VARIOUS PASSAGES IN 
THE MOSAIC CODE WHICH REFER TO SERVITUDE. 

Sec. 1. — Circumstances in which the Mosaic Code 
ivas given. 

The Mosaic code was given immediately after the 
departure of the Jews from the land of Egypt. We 
use the term, immediately, here with some latitude, 
meaning by it that the giving of the law was the 
next important thing in the history of the Jews 
after their departure from Egypt. It is not essential 
to this discussion whether this period bo considered 
forty years or less. It is manifest that immediately 
after the deliverance from Egypt, and the passage of 
the Eed Sea, the giving of the law commenced. As 
the Jews were when they loft the eastern shore of the 
Eed Sea, so were they when they received the Mo- 
saic code. There was no intervening chapter of 
history to change or modify their condition, socially, 
individually, or collectively. 

Now it is manifest that they came out of Egypt 
a free people ; free as a nation, and free as individ- 
uals. LkIixmI, there is not the least shadow of evi- 
dence that there was any approach to chattel slavery 
among them. It is very plain from the history, that 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 103 

the Israelites, Jacob and his family, went from Ca- 
naan down into Egypt a band of unchattelized 
freemen. It is as plain that they neither had, nor 
could have had, slaves, while they were in Egypt, 
It is preposterous to suppose that they either made 
slaves of the Egyptians, or captured people from 
surrounding nations, and made slaves of them in 
Egypt. It is, therefore, certain, that they carried 
no slaves with them up out of Egypt. They had 
not been slaves to the Egyptians, and they were not 
slaves to each other. Indeed, one of the leading 
purposes which God had in view in their oppression 
in Egypt was, to teach them ''the heart of the 
stranger ; " and to beget in them a heart to feel for 
the poor and oppressed, and to deliver them effectu- 
ally and fully from the spirit of all oppression. And 
it is especially worthy of notice, that, in their sub- 
sequent history, God often appeals to their afflictions 
in Egypt as a reason why they should "love the 
strano;er" as themselves, and take care not to "vex 
or oppress" him. It is preposterous in the extreme, 
to suppose that, in the midst of these circumstances, 
they came forth from their Egyptian house of bond- 
age a nation of slaveholders. And it seems to us 
passing strange that Mr. Barnes, as well as other 
writers, after proving that the words "servant," 
'^huy,'' and "sell," and other similar words which 
are used in the Patriarchal history and Mosaic code, 
determine nothing as to the existence of slavery, 
these terms being just as applicable to free servants 
as to slave servants, should adopt, as the basis of all 



104: BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

his reasonings on the subject of Old Testament serv- 
itude, the baseless and absurd assumption that the 
Israelites were led of God up out of Egypt with a 
gang of slaves at their heels. The truth is, they 
came out of Egypt a iiation of freemen, with Hehreio 
customs and usages, and as Hebrew families ; for 
their families were not broken up in Egypt. They 
came out both as free, and as free Hebrews. They 
did not depart from Egypt as Greeks, or Romans, 
or Persians, or Anglo-Saxons, or Frenchmen, but as 
ancient Hebrews, with Jewish feelings, customs, and 
peculiarities. They brought the Hebreio family with 
them. As such, without slavery, Moses found them 
on the eastern shore of the Red Sea; as such, they 
submitted themselves to his leadership, and, as such 
he, under divine direction, made law3 for them. 
"What Moses found of servitude among the Israelites 
to regulate and to legislate about, was not chattel 
slavery, but the free, righteous servitude of the 
Abrahamic household, descended in the Jewish fam- 
ilies. With this fact, as we shall see, the entire 
Mosaic code perfectly agrees. 

Sec. 2. — Institution of the Passover. — Ex. xii : 43-47. 

"And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This 
is the ordinance of the passover : there shall no 
stranger eat thereof: But every man's servant that 
is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised 
him, then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner and a 
hired servant shall not eat thereof. In one housQ 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 105 

shall it be eaten ; tliou shalt not cany forth aught 
of the flesh abroad out of the house ; neither shall 
ye break a bone thereof. All the congregation of 
Israel shall keep it." 

These verses are found in the chapter which gives 
an account of the institution of the Passover. The 
object of that account is to explain the ordinance of 
the Passover, and give directions for its observance. 
The passage which we have quoted is not a statute 
respecting servitude, and is here examined only be- 
cause it contains incidental allusion to the different 
elements of the Hebrew household. It is worthy of 
notice, that, as in the account of the institution of 
the rite of circumcision, the different elements of the 
Hebrew family are alluded to, not to describe them, 
but for the purpose of defining and limiting the ob- 
servance of the Passover; and that just as if these 
constitutive elements of the family were well under- 
derstood. We have here, as in the other case, the 
ftimily proper, consisting of the children proper, and 
the other children "born in the house," the "bought- 
with-money" servant, and, in addition, the '4iired 
servant." The hired servant did not belong to the 
household, being only a temporary laborer, having 
his home somewhere else ; hence he is not mentioned 
at all in connection with the rite of circumcision, 
and hence he is excluded from the Passover. 

It is further worthy of remark, that the feast of 
the Passover was to be eaten hy families. The lamb 
was not to be divided to be eaten in different houses. 



106 BIBLE SEEVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

As the Clialdee lias it, " In one society shall ye eat 
it." For the sake of social fellowship, and to make 
the idea of the family prominent, each family, as a 
family, were to eat the Passover together. Hence 
it took in all the bona-fide members of the house- 
hold. The " bought-with-money " servant was a fix- 
ture of the household, for the time being, and so 
belonged to it, as part and parcel of it. The phrase, 
" bought with money," as applied to him in Mosaic 
diction, has not the remotest allusion to his being a 
slave. That ancient phraseology only shows how he 
became attached to the household. As we have 
already seen, this was a common mode, in Patriarchal 
times, of attachino; servants to the household. This 
phrase, in its origin and use in the Hebrew lan- 
guage, related to freemen, and a state of freedom, 
and not at all to slaves, and a state of slavery. No 
ancient Israelite would think for a moment of refer- 
ring it to slaves. It has come to be referred to 
slaves only by lugging back the sense of modern 
usage, and botching it on to the honest ancient He- 
brew. And so the Word of God is perverted and 
carried over to the abominable service of giving its 
holy sanction to chattel slavery. But let the reader 
note and remember, that we find no other elements 
belonging to the Hebrew household mentioned any- 
where in the Mosaic writings, than these which be- 
longed to the Abrahamic household. In that house- 
hold, as we have seen, these elements must have 
been free elements. They are nowhere described as 
being any thing else. They belonged to the Abra- 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 107 

hamic lioiisehold ; tliey belonged to the Hebrew 
family afterward ; and to them the Mosaic legisla- 
tion everywhere corresponds. 

Sec. 3. — Hebrew Servants. 

Ex. xxi : 2-G — " If thou buy a Hebrew servant, 
six years shall he serve : and in the seventh he shall 
go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, 
he shall go out by himself : if he were married, then 
his wife shall go out with him. If his master have 
given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or 
daughters ; the wife and her children shall be her 
master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if 
the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, 
my wife, and my children ; I will not go out free : 
Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; 
he shall also bring him to the door or unto the 
door-post ; and his master shall bore his ear through 
with an awl; and he shall serve him forever." 

In regard to this statute, observe as follows : 

1. In form, language, and spirit, it is a direct and 
positive statute. 

2. There is a partial exposition of this statute by 
the great Jewish Lawgiver himself, where it is re- 
peated in Deuteronomy, which throws great light 
upon it. This rehearsal is as follows : Deut. xv : 
12-18 — " And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a 
Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee 
six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let 



108 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

him ffo free from thee. And when thou sendest him 
out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away 
empty : Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy 
flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine-press : 
of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed 
thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt re- 
member that thou wast a bondman in the land of 
Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee : there- 
fore I command thee this thing to-day. And it 
shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away 
from thee ; because he loveth thee and thine house, 
because he is well with thee; Then thou shalt take 
an awl and thrust it through his ear unto the door, 
and he shall be thy servant forever. And also unto 
thy maid-servant thou shalt do likewise. It shall 
not seem hard unto thee, when thou sendest him 
away free from thee ; for he hath been worth a 
double hired servant to thee, in serving thee six 
years : and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in all 
that thou doest." 

3. It is manifest from these two passages, taken 
together, as referring to one and the same statute, 
as they evidently do, that this statute, in regard to 
Hebrew servants, included alike in its provisions 
both male and female servants. The recapitulation 
in Deuteronomy, where express mention is made of 
female servants, as well as of male servants, makes 
this positively certain. 

4. It is further evident, from the nature of the 
case, that Hebrew servants, such as this statute con- 
templates, would generally, if not universally, belong 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 109 

to a class of people who were otherwise destitute of 
any home. Those who had homes of their own 
would not need, and would not be likely, to engage 
as servants, except as "hired servants." 

This is also clearly evident from the regulations 
in regard to the Passover. The Passover was pecul- 
iarly a family institution. The mere temporary, 
"hired servant," who was supposed to have a home 
somewhere else, was forbidden to eat of it in the 
family of his employer. The servant "bought with 
money," such as was the servant contemplated in 
this statute in regard to Hebrew servants, which we 
are now considering, having no other home, was to 
eat of it in the family in which he was servant. 
Hebrew servants that were " bought," then, under 
the provisions of this statute, were generally if not 
universally, servants that were destitute of a home. 

5. It is also plain that, in the contract for serv- 
ice contemplated in this statute, the Hebrew servant 
was received and incorporated into the family as 
part and parcel of it. This, indeed, as we have 
already seen, was an important and leading element 
in this engagement between master and servant. 
It was an alliance of the servant with the household, 
to become a member of it. It was more than simple 
hire. It was a contract for household membership. 

6. The word "buy," in these passages, has its 
usual sense, when applied to the engagement of 
servants. It refers simply to the money stipulation 
between the householder and the homeless person, 
by which the alliance of the latter with the former, 



110 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMIXED. 

as a liouseliold member, was effected. It lias no 
allusion whatever to property ownership in the per- 
son of the servant. It refers to the bargain made 
between the householder and the servant, in which 
the former paid money to the latter, and by which 
the latter became a member of the household, to do 
service, and Ije under its control. In the repetition 
and expansion of this statute, in Deut., chapter xv, 
this is clearly implied. In the tAvelfth verse the 
phraseology is, " And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, 
or a Hebrew woman he sold unto thee." The verb 
used here, and translated '-'he sold," is translated, 
in Lev. xxv: 47, "sell himself." A similar trans- 
lation of this same verb may be found in Isa. 1 : 1, 
and Hi : 3, and in Jer. xxxiv : 14. That the serv- 
ant himself received the money paid, is also con- 
clusively manifest from Lev. xxv: 51, 52; from 
which it is also manifest that it was the custom for 
the servant to receive his pay for the whole six 
years' service in advance, at the time the contract 
was made. The servant, therefore, as a free man, 
made his part of the bargain, and, as a free man, 
entered upon the fulfillment of the contract : his pay 
he received in advance. The householder, also, as 
a free man, and iis with a free man, made his part of 
the bargain, and fulfilled it accordingly. There was 
no compulsion on either side, nor any other element 
of slavery. 

7. All this agrees perfectly with the peculiar 
constitution of the Jewish household, and the cus- 
toms of Jewish society. The contract between the 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. Ill 

Hebrew servant and his employer was not exactly 
like a modern bargain between a laborer and his 
employer. It was, by no means, so exclusively a 
mere, dry, money transaction. It had in it more of 
the friendly, neighborly, social, family element. It 
Avas a contract for service : it was also a contract for 
home and its attendant privileges and blessings. 

8, Hence the engagement was extended through 
several years. Attachment to the household in the 
Abrahamic, Jewish "sense, must have some measure 
of permanency connected with it, in order to be of 
any value as a household connection. It must ex- 
tend through several years, in order to be really 
valuable to either servant or master. Otherwise, it 
would be a mere temporary matter, as in the case of 
"hired servants." The arrangement contemplated 
in this statute was a very different thing from that 
which pertained to ''hired servants." " Hired serv- 
ants " did not properly belong to the household, but 
were merely engaged to do temporary service, with 
a home somewhere else : or, at least, without a home 
in the household where they were employed. The 
servants provided for in this statute constituted 
another class entirely. They were^ by the opening 
contract, incorporated into the household as part and 
parcel of it. This would demand some measure of 
permanency in the arrangement. Hence the exten- 
sion of the time to six years : the shortest allowable 
period consistent with the nature of the case. 

9. But, for several reasons, such an arrangement 
needed some limitation. First, in order to give all 



112 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

servants an opportunity to establish a home of their 
own. It was a favorite object with the Mosaic code, 
and the whole Jewish Dispensation, to elevate every 
man and procure for him a home People that were 
destitute of such home could find a temporary, par- 
tial home, under this statute for servitude. To give 
them an opportunity of establishing an independent 
one of their own, this servitude arrangement for a 
home was limited to six years : at the end of which 
it was caused to expire, in order to give the servant 
a chance to try for himself, or renew the servitude 
arrangement, as might please him best. The best 
arrangement for every man is to have a home of his 
own: next to that, is a home in some other good 
home. This latter was the thing contemplated and 
sought after in this statute, for such persons as were 
not able to secure for themselves the former. The 
time was extended to six years, in order to make the 
connection as home-like as possible: it was limited 
to six years, in order to give every servant an oppor- 
tunity to make a home for himself. 

Secondly, this arrangement was limited, lest it 
should run into slavery, or some other form of op- 
pression. This limitation most effectually forestalled 
all slavery as to Hebrew servants among the Jews. 
Again, it is also very probable that this statute had 
another limitation. It is altogether probable that 
the servant might redeem himself at any time, by a 
mutual agreement with the master, and on refunding 
the purchase-money. By express statute, (Lev. xxv : 
47-49,) the Hebrew servant sold to "a sojourner or 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 113 

stranger" might be thus redeemed, and the pre- 
sumption is, that all Hebrew servants, under this 
statute in Ex. xxi : 2-6, had the same privilege. 

10. But if the servant found that his connection 
with the household was likely to be better for him 
and his family than any home which he could estab- 
lish for himself, this statute provided (Ex, xxi : 5-6 ; 
Deut. XV : 16-17,) for jpermanent alliance, according 
to the old Abrahamic custom. "If he say unto 
thee, I will not go away from thee; because he lov- 
eth thee and thine house, because he is well with 
thee; Then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it 
through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy 
servant forever." 

In Patriarchal times, it is manifest that the alli- 
ance with the household to render service and be 
subject to it, to be a member of it and have a home 
in it, was usually a joerTnanent alliance ; for life, and 
even for future generations. This tendency still re- 
mained in the Jewish nation. Hence the need of 
the special provisions made in this statute, for per- 
manent connection with the household. In all cases 
this connection was entirely voluntary, and on the 
basis of freedom. It made no slavery, and contem- 
plated none. It was a permanent membership con- 
nection with the household, to be under its control 
and do service for it, much like that of all the mem- 
bers of the household. This was the Jewish idea of 
servitude. This w^as Paul's idea of it, as he expressly 
tells us. y Now I say, that the heir, as long as he 
is a child, differeth nothing from a servant." — (Gal. 



114 EIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

iv: 1.) But this permanent alliance was strongly 
guarded in several ways. (1.) It was entered upon 
only after a long and thorough trial. (2.) The en- 
gagement must be made in a public manner, and a 
j^ublic record made of it. (3.) The servant lost no 
rights of citizenship by this transaction, and hence 
had equal protection from the laws of the land with 
the master. 

11. If the contract was with married servants, 
that is, with a man-servant and his wife, at the 
end of six years they were to go out free together. 
And in order that they might be assisted, much 
as parents assist their children in starting in life, 
in establishing a home for themselves, they were 
to be "furnished" "liberally" by the master, "out 
of his flock," and "out of his floor," and "out of 
his wine-press." — Deut. xv: 14. This was to be 
done cheerfully. — Verse 18. That is, they were to be 
sent out from the household, where they had so long 
found a home, with paternal sympathy and help, to 
build a home for themselves. How beautifully Pa- 
triarchal, generous, man-loving, and Christian ! in- 
finitely further removed from slavery than the poles 
are from each other. 

12. And the proviso in the fourth verse of the 
statute, as laid down in Ex. xxi, is in perfect har- 
mony with all the rest. " If his master have given 
him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daugh- 
ters ; the wife and her children shall be her master's, 
and he shall go out by himself." It was the uni- 
versal custom in the days of the Patriarchs, and for 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 115 

many generations following, that not even a wife 
could be transferred from one liouseliold to another 
without compensation. The usages of the times 
compelled every man to "purchase" and pay for 
his wife. In the case before us, the master is sup- 
posed to "give" or furnish the servant a wife: one 
that already belonged to his household ; and hence 
furnished without compensation. The woman al- 
ready belonged to the master's household, and the 
giving of her to the servant to be his wife did not 
transfer her to any other household. She belonged 
to the master's household still, as did the servant 
who was her husband. 

Xow, it is manifest, from all the circumstances of 
the case, that she would be thus " given " by the 
master only on supposition that the servant would 
remain a permanent member of the household. But 
if, contrary to this expectation, he should determine 
to go out by himself, at the end of his six years' 
term of service, the fixed usages of society, and hence 
justice to the master, would not permit him to take 
his wife with him (and of course the children would 
remain with the mother,) ivithout the usual arrange- 
nnents for transfer. But his going out free by him- 
self, that is, alone, would, by no means, separate him 
from his wife in the sense of divorce. Such depar- 
ture from the household would not in the least 
disturb the relation of husband and wife. It would 
separate them only as to home and household. And 
even this inconvenience could be easily remedied. 

It could always be remedied, (1,) by the servant's 



116 BIBLE SEEVITUDE BE-EXAMINED. 

consenting to remain permanently a memuer of the 
liouseliold, a privilege wliicli he always had a right 
to claim, and the claiming of which would manifestly 
be implied in his marriage contract : (2,) by his 
paying the usual dowry and for whatever of unex- 
pired service might remain due to the master from 
the wife: (3,) by his waiting till his wife herself 
should be free, provided she was a six years' servant, 
and not a permanent servant. It could always be 
forestalled and avoided by the servant's refusing to 
form any such matrimonial engagement. The pre- 
sumption therefore is, that the separation alluded to 
would usually be the result of perverseness on the 
part of the servant. His connection with his wife 
would be formed in view of the circumstances of the 
case, and if he was an honest and honorable man, 
need not involve the necessity of any separation at 
all. His master would give him a wife in order to 
bind him to the household : his acceptance would be 
his consent to his master's object. 

This statute, therefore, cither in its spirit or in 
the letter thereof, either in its general scope or in. 
its particular provisions, does not lie in the same 
hemisphere with chattel slavery. There is not in it 
any sort of slavery. Its provisions are wise, be- 
nevolent, and on the basis of the fullest individual 
freedom. Hence its direct, positive, and permanent 
character. It is not a statute to permit an evil till 
some other and different legislation should work to 
remove it, but a positive law authorizing and estab- 
lishing forever, on principles of righteousness and 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 117 

trutli, that wliich it concerns. Its object was to 
secure personal freedom, protect individual manhood 
rights, and promote the welfare and happiness of 
all. All its provisions were wise for the accom- 
plishment of this end. 

Sec. 4. — Sjxcial Case of Contract for /Service and 
Anticipated Marriage. 

Ex. xxi: 7-11 — "x\nd if a man sell his daughter 
to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the 
men-servants do. If she please not her master, 
who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let 
her be redeemed : to sell her unto a strange nation 
he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceit- 
fully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto 
his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of 
daughters. If he take him another tvife, her food, 
her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not 
diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, 
then shall she go out free without money." 

1. The key to the exposition of this somewhat 
difficult passage of Scripture is to be found in its 
speciality. From the peculiar constitution of the 
Jewish household, and of Jewish society, cases might 
arise in which it might be desirable for the father 
and his family to seek a place for his daughter in 
some other household, to do service for it and be a 
member of it, with the expressed or implied under- 
standing that she should, at some future time, be- 



118 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

come a wife in it. This would constitute a very 
peculiar and special case, requiring a special statute, 
and special safeguards. This is the case provided 
for in the statute before us : a case of contract for 
service and anticipated marriage. 

2. It is manifest, from the nature of the case, that 
instances of this sort would not be very numerous. 
In ordinary circumstances, fathers would not "sell" 
their daughters for service and anticipated marriage. 
The usual practice was to "sell" daughters in actual 
marriage. Daughters would, much more commonly, 
remain in the paternal homestead till transferred to 
another household by actual marriage. Neverthe- 
less, the father might, sometimes, find it desirable 
to transfer his daughter to another household, to be 
a member of it, and do service in it, if he had good 
reason to believe that the change would result in a 
matrimonial alliance with the lord of the house, or 
with his son. To provide for, and guard such cases, 
was the object of this statute. 

3. Since, therefore, this was a case of contract for 
service and anticipated marriage, it comes under the 
rules both for service and marriage. This fact 
brings in the father's agency. This agency is to be 
understood, of course, only in the voluntary sense, 
according to the prevailing usages of the times and 
of Jewish society. It implied no compulsion any- 
where. Modern usage makes the iather give away 
his daughter in marriage, and a dowry along with 
her. Ancient usage made the father "sell" his 
daughter and take the dowry. The former gives 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 119 

the money, or pay ; tlie latter took it. Neither the 
modern "giving," nor the ancient "selling," implies 
any compulsion on the part of the father. The sell- 
ing of the daughter, in the case before us, as alluded 
to in the seventh verse, was precisely as usual when 
a father sold his daughter in marriage, and had not 
the remotest allusion whatever to property possession 
in the persoij of the daughter, on the part of either 
the father or the master. It was a selling for mar- 
riage at some future time, and for service and mem- 
bership in the household meanwhile. Neither of 
these contracts among the Jews ever had the re- 
motest connection with chattel slavery. Freedom 
was always the basis of both. When Boaz "pur- 
chased " Ruth, the great-grandmother of David, and 
ancestral mother of Messiah, it was not as a slave, 
or to be a slave, but as a free woman, to be a wife. 
Such purchase was a part of the customary court- 
ship, and was conducted on principles of the most 
generous and honorable gallantry. It was entirely 
voluntary on all sides, and implied no compulsion 
anywhere. The fact that the father " sells " his 
daughter, in the two-fold contract for service and 
marriage, has not the remotest allusion to a state 
of slavery. 

4. This statute treats of the "going out" of this 
particular class of servants referred to. "And if a 
man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall 
not go out as the men-servants do." This is the 
subject of the statute. It treats of the going out of 
this particular class of maid-servants. 



120 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

The contrast here is not between maid-servants 
and 7?le?^-servants, as the reader might at first sup- 
pose ; but manifestly between this particular class 
of maid-servants, and the six years' man-servants 
and maid-servants alluded to in the preceding stat- 
ute. The phrase, " she shall not go out as the men- 
servants do," plainly refers back to the servants 
spoken of in the preceding statute. But this stat- 
ute, as we have before seen, includes both men- 
servants and maid-servants. Inasmuch, therefore, 
as the Hebrew word for " men-servants " in the 
phrase, " she shall not go out as the men-servants 
do," is a general term, and may include both men- 
servants and maid-servants, it is clear that the con- 
trast here is between this particular class of maid- 
servants, and the men-servants and maid-servants 
described and legislated for in the preceding statute. 
These were six years' Hebrew servants, both male 
and female. They were to "go out" at the expira- 
tion of the six years' term of service ; that was the 
way in which they should "go out." At that time, 
they were to go out free, liberally furnished. Now, 
the daughter, transferred according to this special 
statute we are now considering, should not go out 
in this way. She should not be subject to the rules 
laid down for common servants. The contract, in 
her case, embraced also the marriage contract. The 
daughter thus allied to the household should not be 
sent away as the common six years' servants were. 
Her term of service was expected to lose itself in 
the conjugal relation, either with the master, or with 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 121 

his son. In case of any failure in tliis — in case the 
master should not fix upon her for his wife, (Hebrew,) 
nor yet his son, according to the original expectation, 
and in case she was not treated as an espoused wife, 
she should not be sent away as the common servants 
were. Different rules should apply to her case. 

Before examining these several regulations separ- 
ately in order, it is worthy of remark that they all 
look to the protection of the maid-servant. The 
design of this whole statute plainly was to guard and 
protect her rights. This it does effectually. It fully 
protects her rights as a free woman. 

1. It is manifestly implied in this statute, that it 
was the expectation, in the premises, that the master 
would ultimately marry the maid-servant, and she 
would become his wife. "If she please not her 
master who hath betrothen her unto himself." If 
the master should act in good faith, and actually 
make her his wife, well. The servant would be lost 
in the wife, and there would be no "going out" 
at all. 

2. But ''if she please not her master," as soon as 
it appears that the master does not fix upon her for 
a wife, and thus there is a failure to consummate 
the principal object of the original contract, namely, 
marriage, then, the master ''shall let," or cause 
"her to be redeemed." If the master should fail in 
this part of his obligation, then the maid-servant 
should "go out" by redemption. This is the first 
regulation in this statute in regard to her going 
forth from the household of the master who had 

11 



122 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

''bought" her. If he failed m the marriage con- 
tract, this failure should forfeit all right to retain 
her as a mere maid-servant ; nor should he have any 
power to transfer her, either for service or for mar- 
riage, to any other family, for this is clearly the 
sen'se of the word translated ''nation,;' in this eighth 
verse. The master should have no power to dispose 
of her to any one else for a wife, for the purpose 
of recovering a portion, or all, of the dowry which 
he had paid for her. This right of disposal should 
continue to lie exclusively with her own proper 

familv. 

3. In the third place, if the woman should be be- 
trothed to the son of the master, in anticipation of 
marriage, all would be well. In this case, also, the 
contract for service would lose itself in the marriage 
relation, according to the original expectation, and 
there would be no "going out" in the case. As 
the wife of the son, the master of the household 
should treat her as a daughter. " He " should ' ' deal 
with her after the manner of daughters." 

4. But if there should be a failure as to the mar- 
riage contract on the part of both master and son, 
and "another" female (the Hebrew does not say 
" wife,") should be taken into the household, as she 
had been at first, with a view to anticipated mar- 
riage, thus supplanting her entirely in this respect, 
then, if she is either not able to accomplish her re- 
demption, or does not desire to do so, she shall be 
treated in all respects as an honorable member of 
the household. Her home there, her food, and her 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 123 

clothing, shall be faithfully furnished. The Hebrew 
word, translated "her duty of marriage," in the 
tenth verse, is probably used in no other place in 
the Bible.* The root from which it is derived 
means ''to dicell;" and hence the signification, 
^'dwelling-place," or "home," which we give to it 
in this passage. 

We object to the sense of the English translation, 
as being unsuitable to the passage. All the pro- 
visions of this statute respect time previous to mar- 
riage, and refer to failure in the marriage part of 
the contract. This statute, mark, includes simply 
the case of the daughter sold to be a moAd-servant, 
with^ marriage anticipated, and treats of her "going 
out," or release from the household, not as a repu- 
diated wife, but as a 7naid-servant. It is not at all 
a case of divorce, but of release from service, when 
certain conditions have transpired. The scope of 
the statute clearly locates these conditions previous 
to actual marriage. For marriage absorbs the serv- 
ice contract, and puts an end to all going out as a 
maid-servant. All departure from the household, 
after marriage, must be as a repudiated wife, which 
is a matter altogether foreign to the title and sub- 
ject of this statute. First, if marriage takes place 
between the master and the maid-servant, of course, 
there is to be no departure. Second, if the master 
fails as to the marriage, then the maid-servant may 
go out from the household and its service, by re- 

=> Some suppose that this same word occurs in Hos. x : 10, where it ia translated 
' Jurrou-a; margin, "habitations." 



124 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

demption. Third, if tlie master betroth her unto 
his son, she is to be in the househohi as a daughter. 
Fourth, if the master "take him another," not in 
actual marriage, but as the first was taken, to dis- 
place her so far as anticipated marriage is concerned, 
the maid-servant, instead of securing her redemp- 
tion, might complete her service contract, if she 
chose, provided she should be famished with food, 
and raiment, and home, that is, home privileges, as 
an honoraljle member of the household. 

5. But if these should be diminished, (verse 11th,) 
this should forfeit all claim on the part of the mas- 
ter, and she should be at liberty to "go out" "free 
without money," her service contract being cancelled 
without the payment of any redemption money what- 
ever. As a maid-servant released from obligation, 
by the failure of the master to perform his part of 
the contract, should she "go out." The original 
contract really included in it food, raiment, and 
home, as betrothed wife or daughter : failure in any 
of these particulars should release the maid-servant 
from all further obligations. Such failure would bo 
a virtual violation of the whole spirit of the original 
contract, which neither contemplated nor admitted 
of any degradation of the maiden. That contract 
secured for her an honorable transfer from the pa- 
ternal home to another household, eventually to 
become the wife of the lord thoreof, or of his son. 
Now, that this is a case of freedom, and not of 
slavery, is suilicienlly manifest on the very face of 
things. 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE, 125 

1. It is perfectly certain, at the outset, that no 
Hebrew father would ever enter into such an ar- 
rangement as this, unless both father and daughter 
had good reason to believe that the alliance would be 
for the advantage of the daughter and her family. 
The "seller," in this case, is a Hebrew /a^Aer, and 
not a Southern slave-dealer. The arrangement is 
that of a Hebrew father for his beloved daughter, of 
the stock of Abraham. God forbid that we should 
for a moment imagine that any father in Israel 
should, for an instant, harbor the thought of con- 
signing his own daughter to the condition of a chat- 
tel slave! Such a base slander upon the seed of 
Abraham finds no warrant from the Sacred Kecord, 
and should not be tolerated for a single moment. 

2. There is a total want of all positive evidence 
in this statute, that a state of slavery was contem- 
plated therein. The " selling " implies no such evi- 
dence : the being " a maid-servant " implies no such 
evidence: the fact of redemption from service im- 
plies no such evidence : the going out free without 
money implies no such evidence. Not one particle 
of such evidence can be found in this whole statute. 

3. The main, if not the whole object of this 
statute, was to protect and guard the rights of the 
maid-servant as a free woman. This protection is 
totally inconsistent with a state of chattel slavery. 
This is too manifest to need further illustration or 
proof. 

4. It may be noticed further, that no lower social 
condition, or position, is contemplated in this statute 



126 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

for tlie maid-servant than that of wife, or daughter. 
The purchase was manifestly with a view to mar- 
riage with the master himself, or with his son. 
Failure in this gave her immediate liberty to return 
to her father's house. How utterly inconsistent all 
this is with a state of slavery. All the regulations 
of this statute imply freedom and equality, and are 
totally inconsistent with the degradation of chattel 
slavery. 

Before dismissing this subject, it should be noticed 
still further, that the honor of the master and his 
family would always be pledged in behalf of the 
safety and welfare of the maid-servant in question, 
just as is the case in similar transactions in modern 
times. Being an arrangement between freemen, and 
having to do with the most sacred relations of life, 
there would, after all, be less liability to abuse than 
would, at first sight, appear. We are not, by any 
means, to understand either that the father would 
be a cold and hard-hearted Shylock, seeking only to 
make gain out of the offspring of his own loins, or 
that the master (more properly family head,) would 
be only a modern slave-breeder, or a Turkish harem- 
mastcr. This statute refers to, and contemplates 
nothing of the kind. It has reference to honest and 
honorable Hebrew men and women, and was designed 
to guard the rights of the weaker party. On the 
side of that weaker party would be both this special 
statute of protection, and every sentiment of honor 
and generosity of the other party. 

Finallv, let it bo observed, that a true and con- 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 127 

sistent exposition of this statute develops neither 
slavery nor polygamy, as contained or provided for 
in it. Both of these things have been diligently 
sought after in it, but lo! neither of them is any- 
where to be found. The object of the statute is to 
provide for the release of the maid-servant from 
service, in case of failure in the marriage part of 
the contract. This is expressly stated in the first 
verse of the statute. The " going out " is a going 
out from service, when the marriage alliance failed. 
The provisions all respect time previous to actual 
marriage, and look simply to the release of the 
maid-servant from service, on failure in duty of the 
other party, until we come to the ambiguous phrase 
"duty of marriage." Now, it is very harsh and 
unnatural indeed, to suppose that the whole drift of 
the statute changes, at this point, from a statute for 
the release of the abused maid-servant from service 
to a statute for divorce from marriage. As already 
interpreted, we think the whole statute relates to 
release from service, and that there is nothing in it 
that has the remotest allusion to either slavery or 
polygamy. 

Sec. 5. — Sundry Regulations in Regard to Serv- 
ants. 

Ex. xxi : 20, 21 — "And if a man smite his serv- 
ant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his 
hand ; he shall be surely punished." (Margin, 
avenged.) " Notwithstanding, if he continue a day 



128 BIBLE SEEVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

or two, lie shall not be punished : for he is his 
money." 

Two things are enacted in this passage, both of 
which are entirely consistent with a state of freedom 
and equal citizenship on the part of the servant: 
and the first of them implies the fullest equality of 
the servant with the master, as to manhood rights, 

1. If a man should smite his servant to death, he 
should be punished, or, as the Hebrew has it, be 
avenged. What this punishment was to be, is to be 
learned from other statutes. "And he that killeth 
any man shall surely be put to death." — Lev. xxiv : 
17. This settles it, beyond all dispute, that the 
murder of a servant was to be punished just as was 
the murder of any other person. 

If it be asked why there is this special reference 
to servants, if they came under the general law in 
regard to murder, we give a Yankee answer, by re- 
ferring the reader to the fact that repetitions of 
particular statutes, and their reference to special 
cases and particular classes of persons, are very 
common in the writings of Moses. "We need not go 
far to find examples. In the Decalogue we have the 
universal statute, "Thou slialt not kill." — Ex. xx : 
13. In the very next chapter we have this repeated 
in another form, referring, perhaps, to the manner 
of killing, and also stating the penalty: "He that 
smiteth a man so that he die, shall be surely put to 
death." — Ex. xxi : 12. A few verses below, we 
have the particular reference to servants, in the 



I 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 129 

passage we are examining. In Num. xxxv: 16, 
this same law, in regard to murder, is further par- 
ticularized in this form : '' If he smite him with an 
instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer : 
the murderer shall surely be put to death." A little 
further on, in the same chapter, this is repeated in 
the universal form with reference to the evidence 
in the case : " Whoso killeth any person, the mur- 
derer shall be put to death, by the mouth of wit- 
nesses." Now the design of these repetitions and 
particular references was not to imply that there 
were exceptions to this law in regard to murder, 
but to cut off all exceptions, and to reiterate the 
law with additional solemnity and force. He that 
smites a servant to death, for example, shall surely 
be punished : as surely as if he had murdered any 
other man. The manhood rights of the servant 
shall not be one whit less sacred than those of the 
master, or any other man. With God, in his right- 
eous judgments, there is no respect of persons. 
Surely chattel slavery finds no special countenance 
in such statutes as this. 

2. '' Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two, 
he shall not be punished : " that is, as a murderer, 
the presumption then being that the master did not 
intend to kill him. Just as in the statute in the 
preceding verses: "If men strive together, and one 
smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he 
die not, but keepeth his bed, if ho rise again, and 
walketh abroad upon his stafi", then shall he that 
Bmote him be quit : " Quit how ? and to what extent ? 



130 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

Plainly quit as to the crime of murder, but not quit 
as to all blame. The presumption would be that 
the smiter did not intend to kill. But this would 
by no means release from all blame. Whatever 
blame, whatever guilt, whatever mischief might be 
involved in the case, would require to be treated 
according to statutes and principles applicable to the 
case. " Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for 
tooth," blemish for blemish. The smiter should, 
also, as was just, make up for any pecuniary loss 
that might result : " only he shall pay for the loss 
of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly 
healed." 

Precisely these same principles should hold in 
regard to the servant. If the master should smite 
him to death, he should be punished as a murderer. 
If the servant should continue a day or two, the 
presumption would be that there was no murderous 
intent, and the master should be quit of punishment 
as a murderer. This presumption would be strength- 
ened by the fact that the smiting was " with a rod " 
simply, and that the master had a pecuniary interest 
in the servant which he would lose if he murdered 
him. " For he is his money." We have before seen 
that the Hebrew servant was "the money" of the 
master, only in the sense of voluntary contract for 
services and membership in the household of the 
master. The pecuniary loss, if the servant died, 
would be the master's, inasmuch as he had paid for 
his services in advance, and would be deprived of 
those services by the death of the servant. 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 131 

There is, therefore, nothing in this whole statute 
which degrades the servant in the least ; nothing that 
conflicts with his equal manhood, and equal citizen- 
ship in the Hebrew commonwealth, with the master. 
This whole statute contemplates him solely as an 
equal brother man, occupying, for the time being, a 
subordinate station. No principles of legal treat- 
ment are applied to him, which are not applied to 
other men. Indeed, this whole statute is a statute 
of protection for the servant. It guards his life from 
fatal harm, as the Mosaic code guarded the lives of 
all men, with the terrible penalty of death. 

And then, a few verses further along, it was en- 
acted that any serious personal injury done to the 
servant should forfeit all claim on the part of the 
master to further services. "And if a man smite 
the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that 
it perish, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. 
And if he smite out his man-servant's tooth, or his 
maid-servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his 
tooth's sake." This statute reveals the S2:)irit — the 
kind of protection which the Mosaic code extended 
to the servant. It carefully guarded all his rights, 
as a man, an equal fellow-citizen ; so carefully and 
sacredly guarded them, that the word servant never 
came to have a degraded sense in Bible literature ; 
a significant fact, which all pro-slavery interpreters 
of the Bible would do well to ponder. 

Ex. xxi : 32 — " If the ox shall push a man-serv- 
ant, or a maid-servant, he shall give unto their 



132 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMIXED, 

mast(3r tliirty shekels of silver, and the ox bIuiII be 
stoned," 

Inasmuch as the services of the servant, by mu- 
tual compact and just equivalent rendered, belonged 
to the master, and hence the pecuniary loss would 
fall upon him, it was but simple justice that the 
owner of the ox should compensate said master. 
Here, again, is nothing inconsistent with acknowl- 
edged manhood, freedom, and equal citizenship on 
the part of the servant. This statute respects only 
the compensation to be given to the master for his 
pecuniary loss in the services of the servant, for 
which he had before paid. The other parts of this 
statute concerning "an ox that pusheth or goreth," 
w^ere to be applied to servants, in all respects, as to 
other men. 

Ex. xxii : 3 — " If he have nothing, then he shall 
be sold for his theft." 

This is the case of the thief who should be found 
destitute of means by which to make "full restitu- 
tion " for his theft. It was the law concerning theft, 
that the thief "should make full restitution" for the 
wrong committed. If he "had nothing" with which 
to make restitution, then he should be sold for his 
theft. 

If, now, we assume that he was to be sold as a 
chattel slave, it will be very easy for us to make 
this a case of slavery ! And it is only on the ground 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 133 

of this baseless assumption tliat chattel slavery is 
found in this statute. 

If the thief was sold as a free man, to do service 
until he had worked out "full restitution" for the 
trespass committed against his neighbor by his theft, 
as was manifestly the case, this statute reveals not 
the faintest glimmer of chattel slavery. A small 
theft would require a shorter term of service, or, 
if you please, servantship ; a larger theft, a longer 
period. 

This, therefore, was a wise and just statute, and 
trenched upon no inalienable rights or privileges. 
It has not the remotest reference to chattel slavery. 



134 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

FOREIGN SERVANTS. 

Analysis of Lev. xxv and xxvi. 

The specific legislation of the Mosaic code in re- 
gard to foreign servants, is very brief, being all 
contained in two verses and a lialf, found in tlie 
twenty-fiftli chapter of Leviticus. This short pas- 
sage of Scripture has suffered many things at the 
hands of various interpreters. It will be our object, 
in part, to give the results of modern investigation, 
hoping thereby to present the true meaning and 
bearing of the passage in question. 

The twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth chapters of 
Leviticus contain an unbroken message from the 
Lord to the children of Israel. The twenty-fifth 
■chapter begins with this declaration: "And the 
Lord spake unto Moses in Mount Sinai, saying." 
The message following is continuous and unbroken 
till we reach the last verse of the twenty-sixth chap- 
ter, which is this : " These are the statutes, and 
judgments, and laws, which the Lord made between 
him and the children of Israel in Mount Sinai by 
the hand of Moses." The enactment in regard to 
Hebrew servants occurs near the middk^ of this con- 
tinuous message. 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 135 

In this whole message, contained in these two 
chapters, several distinct matters are considered. 
Some of these are closely connected, others are more 
remotely related, and others, still, liave only a very 
distant connection with each other, if any at all. 
This fact needs especially to be borne in mind in 
studying the whole passage, and in studying partic- 
ular parts of it. 

The following analysis will illustrate the above 
remark, and help to exhibit th'e position of the part 
that refers to foreign servants, and show its con- 
nections. 

The first subject of enactment and regulation in 
this message is the sabbatic, or seventh year. This 
occupies the first seven verses of chapter twenty- 
fifth. 

At the eighth verse the Jubilee is introduced. 
This was to occur on the fiftieth year, and was to be 
a great religious festival among the Jews. The fif- 
tieth was to be a sacred year. "Ye shall hallow the 
fiftieth year." — V. 10. " It shall be holy unto you." 
— V. 12. It commenced on a day most sacred to the 
Jews : " On the tenth day of the seventh month, in 
the day of atonement." The great object of the 
Jubilee was a religious one. Of its whole signifi- 
cance it is not to our present purpose to inquire. 

Now, in order to the best observance of this fiftieth 
year, as a great religious sabbath for all the land, of 
peculiar sacredness and significance, several special 
regulations would be needed. 1. Of course it would 
need to be a year of rest from labor. " Ye shall not 



136 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

SOW, neitlier reap Uiat wliicli groweth of itself in it, 
nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed." — 
V. 11. 2. ''Liberty should be proclaimed through- 
out all the hin4 unto all the inhabitants thereof." — 
V. 9. That is, there should be such a finishing up 
of engagements from one to another, such a settle- 
ment and release as would give full freedom to all 
the people to observe this year, as a sacred sabbath 
year, to the best advantage. This was not a pro- 
clamation for the emancipation of modern slaves ; for 
slaves were unknown to the Jewish commonwealth. 
(1.) Every man should return to his paternal estate. 
" And ye shall return every man unto his possession." 
• — V. 10, (2.) Every man should return to his home. 
"And ye shall return every man unto his family." — 
V. 10. (3.) All debts were to be limited l^y the 
Jubilee. — V. 14-16. Contracts were to be adjusted 
to the Jubilee, and so regulated as to terminate at 
that time. Business matters would hence be so 
settled up at the opening of the Jubilee, that they 
would not disturb the best observance thereof. (4.) 
As always, in all this no oppression should be prac- 
ticed. " Ye shall not oppress one another." — V. 14, 
17. The institution of the Jubilee occupies the 
chapter from the 8th verse to the 17th inclusive. 

From verse 18th onward to the 22d, inclusive, 
further particular directions are given in regard to 
the seventh, or sabbatic year. In these verses no 
allusion is made to the Jubilee. The statute ordain- 
ing the Jubilee ends with the 17th verse. 

Pursuing our analysis of the chapter, we notice 



i 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 137 

that the next section of the chapter, verses 23-34, 
contains a statute in regard to the land. " The Land 
shall not be sold forever." — V. 23. It might be 
'^sold," (or mortgaged, rather,) however, subject to 
"redemption." ''In all the land of your possession 
ye shall grant a redemption." — V. 24. But if no 
one was found able or willing to redeem it, it should 
revert to the original owner at the Jubilee. — V. 28. 
This regulation in regard to the land was one of the 
organic laws of the Jewish commonwealth. The 
Jubilee was made the time when the land that had 
been "sold" should revert to the original owner. 
This was one of the beautiful and happy incidental 
arrangements connected with this great sabbatic 
year. But it should be observed that this statute 
contained in these verses (23-34) is a statute con- 
eerning the land, and not a statute concerning the 
Jubilee. The Jubilee is alluded to only incidentally, 
as the time ivhen the land should revert to the proper 
owner, in case of failure to redeem it. The jubilee 
statute proper is all comprised in verses 8-17. 

Let us proceed. Verses 35-38 contain another 
distinct topic of legislation, in which there is no 
allusion whatever to the Jubilee. The spirit of this 
injunction in this section of this message from the 
Lord to the children of Israel, is so good an example 
of the spirit of the Mosaic code generally, that we 
can not forbear quoting it entire : 35. " And if thy 
brother be waxen poor, and fallen into decay with 
thee; [margin, his hand faileth;] then thou shalb 
relieve [strengthen] him : yea, though he he a stran- 
12 



138 BIBLE SEr.VITL^DE RE-EXAMINED. 

ger or a sojourner; that he may live with thee. 

36. Take thou no usury of him, or increase : but fear 
thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. 

37. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, 
nor lend him thy victuals for increase. 38. I am 
the Lord your God, which brought you forth out of 
the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, 
and to be your God." 

"Fallen in decay:" that is, "disabled from help- 
ing himself : one Avho was unable to help himself, as 
if his hand were shaking with the palsy." (Bush, in 
loco.) This, then, is a special statute or injunction 
in behalf of that particular class of persons, who, 
through bodily infirmities, old age, or other causes, 
should become poor, and unable to take care of them- 
selves. Such were to be assisted to maintain their 
standing and position as fellow-citizens of the com- 
monwealth of Israel. " That he may live with thee :" 
keep his place and maintain himself and family. 
This most beneficent injunction is enforced with a 
beautiful and affecting allusion, in verse 38th, to 
God's authority, and his great goodness to them in 
bringing them out of the land of Egypt, and giving 
them the land of Canaan, to be their God. A fine 
example this of the application of the great law of 
Jove to the case of truly needy people. 

Proceeding with our analysis of the chapter, we 
come, next in order, (verses 39-43,) to a special stat- 
ute in regard to another class of poor families, who, 
though not disabled, should find it difficult to sustain 
themselves, and keep their land and home. A man 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 139 

witli his family in sucli circumstances, might seek 
relief by " selling himself." 39. " And if thy brother 
that clwelleth by thee, be waxen poor, and be sold, 
[or sell himself,] unto thee; thou shalt not serve thy- 
self with him with the service of a servant, (He- 
brew,) 40. but as a hired servant [hireling] and as 
a sojourner he shall be with thee, and shall serve 
thee unto the year of Jubilee : 41. And then shall 
he depart from thee, both he and his children with 
him, and shall return unto his own family, and 
unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. 
42. For they are my servants, which I brought 
forth out of the land of Egypt : they shall not be 
sold with the sale of a servant (Hebrew). 43. Thou 
shalt not rule over him with rigor; but shalt fear 
thy God." 

Observe, in regard to this statute, that it refers 
definitely and exclusively to the poor man who 
should find it difficult to sustain himself and his 
family, though not disabled, and who should choose 
to "sell himself" to his neighbor, to be his servant, 
for the purpose of bettering his circumstances. Any 
Jew, from the king on the throne to the meanest 
subject, might " sell himself," after the Jewish man- 
ner of "selling," to his neighbor, to be his servant, 
who should choose to do so. In none of the forms 
of Hebrew servitude was there the least oppression, 
injustice, unrighteousness, or impropriety. Any 
man might, if he chose, be a hired servant, a six 
years' servant, or a forever servant. 

In the case of the poor man, referred to in' the 



140 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

statute before us, wlio, instead of maintaining liis 
own home and engaging as a liirecl servant, should 
prefer to unite himself to his neighbor's household 
after the manner of the common six years' servant, 
some special regulations would be needed. "Thou 
shalt hot serve thyself with him with the service of 
a servant, [common six years' servant,] but as a 
hired servant, [hireling,] and as a sojourner he shall 
be with thee." That is, although, to relieve his 
poverty, he should sell himself, and receive the pay 
in advance, just as did the common, or six years' 
servant, yet his relation to the household should be 
altogether temporary, and only like that of the hired 
servant, or sojourner. His own household should 
not be broken up and merged in that of his em- 
ployer, as was the case with the common, or six 
years' servant. It would manifestly be very trying, 
and oppressive even, for a man, on account of 
poverty, to break up his own household and incor- 
porate himself into his neighbor's household, like a 
six years' servant. This, therefore, w^as kindly for- 
bidden. His own family standing should remain, 
though he w^as joined, for the time being, with an- 
other family. He should still be recognized as a 
separate household, in the observance of the Pass- 
over and other religious feasts, and in his standing 
as a Hebrew citizen. 

Again, such a state of dependence as this w^ould 
need to come to an end at the sounding of the Ju- 
bilee trumpet. — V. 40, 41. In order to the best 
and liappicst observance of the great sabbatic year 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 141 

of Jubilee, the man and his family should resume 
their standing as an independent household. The 
presumption and expectation in such cases would 
be, that the assistance derived from this temporary 
service to his neighbor would enable him to sus- 
tain himself, and maintain this standing afterward. 
This "selling of himself" to his neighbor for the 
time being, was simply the resort of a poor man, 
able to work, and thus help himself, in order to 
better his circumstances. Such cases would occur, 
of course, as they do among all peoples, in all ages. 
This statute was designed to restrict such arrange- 
ments, and prevent their breaking up the household, 
a most sacred thing in the Mosaic economy. "And 
shall return unto his own family, and unto the pos- 
session of his fathers shall he return, both he and 
his children with him." 

Notice further, in regard to this statute, that the 
idea of "bondage," which crops out in our English 
translation of the 39th verse, "Thou shalt not com- 
pel him to serve as a bond-servant," is altogether a 
gloss of the translators. The Hebrew yields no such 
idea. The word translated "bond-servant'" is the 
common word for servant, and the same word that 
is used to designate Hebrew servants in Ex. xxi: 
2-6. The contrast in this statute is not at all be- 
tween Jews and Gentile, but between the common 
servant and the hired servant. This is expressly 
stated in verses 39 and 40. Neither of these classes 
of servants were bond-servants in any degraded or 
oppressive sense. 



142 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

Observe, too, that this statute throughout relates 
to a particular class of persons. It is manifest, from 
the allusion to the ''stranger" and ''sojourner," in 
the 35th verse of this chapter, that the persons re- 
ferred to might be either Jews or Gentiles. It is 
the particular case of the poor man with his family, 
Jew or Gentile, who should seek to better his cir- 
cumstances by "selling himself" (in the Hebrew 
sense) to his neighbor. 

From overlooking this obvious fact, some have sup- 
posed that this statute contains a general prohibi- 
tion against making servants of Jews. But this 
supposition is in flat contradiction to the statute in 
Ex. xxi : 2-7, and, therefore, can not be admitted. 
And this statute does not even pretend to forbid 
any such thing. It simply commands that the poor 
neighbor ("And if thy brother that dicelleth hy thee 
be waxen poor,") who should sell himself, should not 
be merged in the household like the six years' serv- 
ant, but should sustain only a temporary relation 
thereto, like the hired servant. This statute is just 
as applicable to people of foreign blood as to native 
Hebrews. 

This statute also closes with a beautiful allusion to 
the deliverance from Egypt. " For they are my 
servants which I brought forth out of the land of 
Egypt: they shall not sell themselves with the sale 
of a servant." (Hebrew.) These poor, unfortunate 
families are just as much the servants of God as the 
rich : really on a perfect level with them, as God's 
children : as such they should be regarded and 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 143 

treated : in tlieir peculiar circumstances, tliey should 
not Ije held and considered as common .six years' 
servants: their household should not be extin- 
guished : they should go out at the Jubilee to re- 
turn to their own home and paternal estate : and as 
an independent household in Israel should they 
serve the Lord, whose servants they were as njucli 
as any in Israel. All the people were commanded 
not to abuse such poor, dependent families, but to 
fear God in reference to them. — V. 43. 

This, then, is not a statute concerning the Jubilee. 
It refers to the Jubilee only incidentally. It is a 
statute of special protection to a particular class of 
poor people, who, in their peculiar circumstances, 
might be liable to abuse. The idea of slavery, either 
as it respects Jews or Gentiles, is not in it. 

Statute concerning Foreign Servants. 

We come now, next in order, to the very inno- 
cent, but quite famous, statute concerning foreign 
servants. This,Nas it stands in our English transla- 
tion, is as follows : v. 44-46. 44. " Both thy bond- 
men, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, 
shall be of the heathen that are round about you : 
of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 

45. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that 
do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of 
their families that are with you, which they begat 
in your land : and they shall be your possession. 

46. And ve shall take them as an inheritance for 



144 BIBLE SEKVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

your cliildren after you, to inherit them for a pos- 
session; they shall be your bondmen forever," 

Now, taking this as a distinct and separate section 
in this message from the Lord to the children of 
Israel comprised in these two chapters, we invite 
attention to the following observations concerning it. 

1. The idea of " bondage," which the translators, 
designedly or undesignedly, have apparently diffused 
so freely through this whole passage, really does not 
appear in the Hebrew. There is no different word 
used from that which is usually used to designate 
servants, either Jews or Gentiles. Any schoolboy 
that can read Hebrew, can see this, by examining 
the passage in the original. AVe have noticed this 
fact before. 

2. The passage stands in no position of contrast 
either with what precedes it, or with what comes 
after it. The notion that it stands in contrast with 
the preceding statute in such a sense that we are 
to understand, from the two together, that Jews 
might not be held as "bondmen," while Gentiles 
might, is altogether a myth. Nothing is really said 
about "bondmen" in either passage. As Judge Jay 
has well remarked, the word " bondmen," in this 
passage, is "comment," and not translation. Such 
contrast, furthermore, is impossible^ from the fact 
that the preceding statute is not concerning the 
Jews generally, but concerning a particular class of 
Jews, and probably itself includes Gentiles of the 
same class. 

Nor again, is the assumption that the preceding 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 145 

statute commanded that Jewish servants should go 
out at the Jubilee, while this directed that foreign 
servants should be held as '' bondmen /orci'er," any 
better. There is no such contrast between the two 
passages as to afford the least ground for such as- 
sumption. This statute in regard to foreign serv- 
ants contains no allusion to the Jubilee whatever. 
It is no part of the Jubilee statute. It is a statute 
by itself, like others both before and after it. The 
particular class of servants referred to in the pre- 
ceding statute, were to go out at the Jubilee, whether 
Jews or Gentiles : in this statute nothing is said, 
one way or the other, as to the going out of the 
Gentile servants spoken of. 

3. It should be noticed further, that, really, this 
is not properly a statute concerning foreign servants, 
but simply a grant of permission to the Jews to 
have such servants. It lays down no rules for the 
treatment of such servants, and none for their own 
behavior. The only thing in it is permission to the 
Jews to have foreign servants. It contains no hint 
whether they were to have them as hired servants, 
or six years' servants, or continuously permanent 
servants. 

All this will be still more manifest when the pas- 
sage is divested of the mistaken coloring which our 
English translation gives it. The following trans- 
lation of the whole passage is from the pen of a 
Hebrew scholar, whose candor, learning, and good 
judgment no one will be disposed to dispute.* 

* Eev. J. Morgan, D. D. 

13 



146 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

"Thy servant and thy handmaid which shall be to thee 
from the nations which are round about you, — from them ye 
shall acquire servant and handmaid: and also from the sons 
of the inhabitants which sojourn with you, from them ye 
shall acquire, and from their families which are with you, 
which they have begotten in your land; and they shall be to 
you for a possession ; and ye shall inherit them for your- 
selves and your children after you to possess (as) a posses- 
sion: forever in, or by, them shall ye serve." 

Tliis translation is very literal and idiomatic, but 
faithful to the original, inspired Hebrew, The one 
single thing in this message from the Lord is sim- 
ple permission to the Jews to have, or "possess," 
foreign servants, either from the nations around 
them, or from foreign families dwelling among them. 
This grant was to be continuous, ''forever." The 
servants are designated by precisely the same terms 
as are usually used to designate Hebrew servants, 
and not a word is said as to the position these for- 
eign servants were to occupy, or how they were to 
be treated, or how the servants themselves should 
demean themselves. It really has nothing to do with 
the Jubilee, and stands in no such relation to other 
statutes as to give it a special signification. 

In what sense the Jews were thus permitted to 
"possess" foreign servants as "a possession," may 
be learned from a parallel passage in Isa. xiv : 1, 2 : 
" For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will 
yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land : 
and the strangers shall be joined with them, and 
they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. And the 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 147 

people shall take tliera, and bring tliem to their 
place : and the house of Israel shall possess them in 
the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids : 
and they shall take them captives, whose captives 
they were; and they shall rule over their oppress- 
ors." Barnes says, that by the term " strangers," 
we are to understand " those foreigners who would 
become proselytes to their [the Jewish] religion 
while they were in Babylon." These ''strangers" 
would ''join " themselves to the Jews, as the people 
of God, though in captivity, much as young converts 
join a Christian church: and the Jews would "take 
them " and " possess them for servants and hand- 
maids," much as Christian churches take converts 
and possess them for servants and handmaids. Yet 
these " strangers " were foreigners, and would be, 
as members of Jewish households, foreign servants. 
They would be to the Jews for a possession forever : 
that is, they would be permanently united to them, 
to be one people with them, and belong to them as 
part and parcel of them. In like manner the Jews 
were permitted, by this grant in this passage in 
Leviticus, to procure and possess foreign servants 
both from the nations around them, and from fami- 
lies dwelling among them. There would be no cere- 
monial contamination in this, and no disturbance of 
God's plan in reference to the Jews as a separate 
people. It would really be helping to accomplish 
the great object God had in view in all this plan, 
namely, the salvation of the souls of men. 

The inquiry now arises. How foreign servants, ad- 



148 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMIXED. 

mitted to Jewish households, were to be treated, and 
under what regulations they were to come ? 

We have already seen that, in the grant permit- 
ting the Jews to have foreign servants, there is not 
even a hint in answer to these inquiries. We shall 
also find, on investigation, that specific rules and 
regulations in regard to foreign servants are no- 
where else to be found in the Mosaic code. 

Now, this entire absence of all laws for the regula- 
tion of foreign servants, in the Mosaic code, points 
to the true answer to the foregoing inquiries. As 
servanU, they were to come under the same rules and 
regulations as were Jewish servants. Specific and 
very definite rules were given concerning Jew^ish 
servants of all classes: if foreign servants were to 
come under the same rules, plainly nothing further 
was needed. If they were to come under diff"erent 
regulations, surely such regulations would have been 
given. The undeniable fact that no such regulations 
are to be found in the Mosaic code, makes it safe for 
us to conclude that foreign servants were to come 
under the same rules and regulations as were Jewish 
servants. 

This is confirmed by the frequent announcement, 
in the Mosaic code, of the principle that strangers 
and native Jews were to be under the same laws. 
"Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the 
stranger, as for one of your own country : for I am 
the Lord your God." — Lev. xxiv : 22. "But the 
stranger that dwclleth with you shall be unto you as 
one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thy- 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 149 

self : for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt ; I 
am the Lord your God." — Lev. xix : 34. "Also 
thou shalt not oppress a stranger, for ye know the 
heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the 
land of Egypt." — Ex. xxiii: 9. Verily, if the Jews 
were permitted to admit the stranger, or foreigner, 
into their households, they were well and most im- 
pressively instructed how to regard him and treat 
him. " Thou shall love him as thyself." This is the 
uniform teaching of the Mosaic code. There was no 
need that any Jew should misunderstand it. No 
warrant can be found in the Mosaic code for oppress- 
ing or degrading the stranger. 

It is, indeed, true that foreign servants, as foreign- 
ers, and because they were foreigners, were somewhat 
restricted as to certain privileges, as were foreigners 
who were not servants. But the evidence can not 
be found that the Mosaic code designed to degrade 
them, or restrict their privileges in the least as 
foreign servants, and because they were foreign serv- 
ants. As servants, they were to be regarded and 
treated, in all respects, as were Jewish servants. As 
foreigners, they were to come under the same laws 
as were other foreigners. 

If the Jewish Talmuds, or the traditions of the 
elders, did pretend to teach that the Jews were "for- 
bidden to tyrannize over their own countrymen," 
while it was " lawful to make a Canaanitish servant 
serve with rigor," as some commentators tell us, we 
protest that no such teaching as this is found in the 
law of Moses. It is flatly contradicted by the pas- 



150 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

sages which we have quoted. Mere inferences are 
not to be exalted above the express declarations of 
the Divine Word. We believe in Moses, but we do 
not believe in Talmuds, and traditions, and false in- 
terpretations. 

Eesuming our analysis of the chapter, we come 
next, as sustaining some natural relation to the pre- 
ceding statute giving permission to the Jews to have 
foreign servants, which we have just examined, to 
the statute concerning Jewish servants whose mas- 
tei's were foreigners. This occupies the rest of the 
chapter, beginning, as we suppose, at the middle of 
the 46th verse. The division of the Bible into chap- 
ters and verses is a modern invention, and is of no 
account, except -that it not unfrequently misleads the 
reader. We think there should be a period at the 
word " forever," in the 46th verse, and that that is 
the conclusion of the statute in regard to foreign 
servants, and that the rest of the verse belongs to 
the following statute. Our reasons for this will be 
stated very briefly. 

The word " but," in our English translation, which 
expresses opposition and connection between the two 
parts of the verse, is merely a comment of the 
translators. The Hebrew word which is here ren- 
dered " but," is, in all respects, the identical word 
that is usually translated and. Says Judge Jay: 
" The initial use of and is a peculiarity of the He- 
brew, and especially of the style of Moses. Of the 
one hundred and eighty-seven chapters composing 
the Pentateuch, no less than one hundred and 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 151 

twenty-eight commence with and. Even the 600^-5 
of Leviticus and Numbers thus begin. Innumerable 
are the laws and precepts prefaced with and."^ If, 
therefore, we substitute and for but, our translation 
of this verse will be much more faithful to the in- 
spired Hebrew. 

Supposing now, that the statute concerning the 
employment of foreign servants ends with the word 
"forever" in the 46th verse, the next statute, which 
occupies the remainder of the chapter, will begin as 
follows: 46. "And over your brethren the children 
of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with 
rigor. 47. And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich 
by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him wax 
poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or sojourner 
by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family, 
after that he is sold he may be redeemed." There 
is some natural connection between the injunction, 
" And over your brethren the children of Israel, ye 
shall not rule one over another with rigor," and the 
statute which follows, as may be seen by referring 
to the conclusion of the statute, " And the other shall 
not rule with rigor over him in thy sight." — V. 53. 
As if it had been said, " Ye shall not rule over 
your brethren of the children of Israel with rigor," 
neither "shall ye permit the stranger or the sojour- 
ner to rule over them with rigor," as he might be 
disposed to do in this particular case of a poor Jew 
sold to him to be his servant. "We think, therefore, 
that the latter part of the 46th verse has a more 

>> Mosaic Laws of Servitude, p. 44. 



152 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

natural connection with what follows it than with 
what precedes it. It undoubtedly has a general and 
indirect connection with most of the statutes that 
precede it in the chapter : but to give it a close 
disjunctive connection with the statute concerning 
foreign servants, so as to make the whole mean that 
Jews should not rule with rigor over their brethren 
of the children of Israel, while they might thus rule 
over foreign servants, we think absurd, and flatly 
contradictory to express declarations of Mosaic 
law. 

This last section of this chapter, verses 46-55, is 
manifestly a statute concerning poor Jews with 
homes and families, who might have rich neighbors 
of foreign blood, to whom they should find it to their 
advantage to "sell themselves." It was perfectly 
proper, so far as appears, for Jews to sell themselves 
thus to foreigners to be their servants, if they were 
so disposed. This statute contemplated such cases, 
and is a statute for the protection of the servant and 
his family from abuse. In the first place, it especi- 
ally encouraged redemption. — Verses 48-52. In the 
next place, this statute provided, of course, that the 
servant should be regarded only as "a yearly hired 
servant." — V. 53. The poor Jew thus "sold" to his 
neighbor Gentile should not lose his own fomily 
standing, any more than the poor Jew who was sold 
to his neighbor Jew, as provided for in verses 39-43. 
He could sustain to the family of his employer only 
the relation of "a hired servant," notwithstanding 
he had "sold himself" as the six years' servants did, 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 153 

and as the hired servants never did. Finally, "he 
and his children " should " go out in the year of 
Jubilee," and return to their home and possessions. 
These regulations would sufficiently guard this par- 
ticular class of poor Jewish families, when adverse 
circumstances compelled them to engage as serv- 
ants to their rich Gentile neighbors. Neither Jew- 
ish masters nor Gentile masters should rule over 
them with rigor. 

Next in order in this message from the Lord to 
the children of Israel, chapter xxvi : 1, is a statute 
concerning idolatry. Following this, verse 2, is a 
command respecting " Sabbaths." The next section, 
verses 3-13, pronounces the richest blessings upon 
obedience : and the concluding section of the message, 
verses 14-45, details the most terrible curses upon 
disobedience. 

1. Now, in all these rules and regulations in re- 
gard to servants and others contained in this re- 
markable passage of Scripture, we have found neither 
slaves nor chattel slavery: no, not so much even as 
a hint at any thing of the sort. The legislation 
therein is all concerning servants, and none of it 
concerning slaves. 

2. We have found no degradation or oppression 
of foreign servants. Warrant for such degradation 
can not be found in the Pentateuch. 

3. We have found no degradation or oppression 
of servants of any sort. Such degradation can not 
be found in the laws of Moses. 

4. We have found the most caireful, kindly, and 



154 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

benevolent provisions for the protection of servants 
and others, whose peculiar circumstances might ren- 
der them liable to abuse. 

5. In our judgment, the grant to the Jews to have 
foreign servants, never contemplated their going 
abroad to procure them. "We think this grant ex- 
tended, in general, only to such foreign servants as 
might come among the Jews from the nations around 
them : and also to the children of foreigners dwelling 
among them. Such foreigners might be taken into 
Jewish households as servants. They would thus be 
provided with homes, and brought under the influ- 
ence of the true religion. This, as we understand 
it, was the object of this statute in regard to foreign 
servants. It was designed to absorb and make Jew- 
ish whatever foreign element might find its way into 
the Hebrew nation. It was one leading aim of the 
Mosaic code to keep the Jews a separate people, and 
it never could have designed to send the Jews abroad 
to bring in foreign elements. This would have been 
a fatal' mistake, as might be abundantly shown. 

But whatever foreign clement should " be to 
them," would need some special provisions, in order 
that it might be absorbed and become Jewish. For- 
eigners settled in the land, and having homes of 
their own, might be circumcised and admitted to 
the privileges of the Jewish religion. Others might 
be admitted to Jewish households as servants, and 
so find homes, and be brought under Jewish influ- 
ences. Precisely in harmony with all this was the 
statute in regard to fugitive servants. '' Thou shalt 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 155 

not deliver unto his master the servant which is 
escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell 
v/ith thee, even among you, in that place which he 
shall choose in one of thy gates where it liketh 
him best : thou shalt not oppress him." — Deut. xxiii : 
15, 16. This undoubtedly refers to foreign servants 
escaping into the land of Judea. Such should be 
received with kindness, and permitted to use their 
own lilDcrty in finding a dwelling-place where it 
should please them best. If they should come into 
the land of the Jews, they should be treated with 
justice and good will. But nowhere in the Mosaic 
code is there a hint that the Jews were expected to 
go abroad after foreign servants. 

Finally, we regard this legislation in regard to 
foreign servants, in its true spirit, as a beautiful 
exemplification of the manner in which the Bible 
everywhere demands that all men shall remember 
the "brotherly covenant" which exists between 
man and man as members of the great brotherhood 
of the race. Instead of being a slave-catching stat- 
ute, it is a statute of brotherly love. The Jews, for 
wise reasons, were to be, and to be kept, separate from 
all other peoples ; nevertheless, whatever foreigners 
should find their way into the nation, were to be 
received into their households as readily as people 
of their own nation, and, with a few needful re- 
strictions, were to be under the same laws and 
regulations. They were to be welcomed, and em- 
ployed, and treated with that good will which the 
law of God requires. The express injunctions were: 



156 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

" Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the 
stranger as for one of your own country, for I am 
the Lord." "Thou shalt love him as thyself." Love 
him by receiving him into their houses, giving him 
place and employment there, and, consequently, in- 
struction in the true religion, for the everlasting 
salvation of his soul. And when he should be 
settled in the land and become rich, they should 
regard it as no degradation to find a home for the 
time being, and employment in his household. — 
Lev. XXV : 47. "The brotherly covenant" should 
be sacredly observed between them. Neither should 
''oppress" the other. If either thought of making 
merchandise of the other, the penalty of death, with 
the terrible thunder of Jehovah's voice in it, warned 
him to beware. 



MOSAIC SERVITUDE. 157 



CHAPTER XV. 

THE JEWISH FAMILY THE TRUE MODEL. 

Probably the Abraliamic household, somewhat 
restricted and limited by the Mosaic legislation, 
was the true model of the family. Our modern 
arrangements in regard to the family are somewhat 
too limited. There is a large class of isolated, half- 
vagabond people, that might be made a blessing to 
themselves, and to others, if they could, in some 
way, be incorporated into the family. As it is, their 
life is a cheerless, unsocial, profitless one. This is 
deeply felt both in America and in Europe; and va- 
rious experiments have been made, and expedients 
resorted to, to remedy this evil, but with very poor 
success, for the most part. A little enlargement 
of the modern household, both in benevolence and 
dimensions, like, the Jewish household under the 
Mosaic restrictions, would exactly meet the diffi- 
culty, and, doubtless, be an improvement upon mod- 
ern society. This is not socialism, nor any thing 
like it. It is the golden mean between the narrow- 
est household of the hermit, and the broad and 
unmanageable system of modern socialism. It pre- 
serves the family intact and pure, and, at the same 
time, furnishes a real home for the poor and homeless. 



168 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

There was no poor-liouse in Palestine : there was no 
need of any. The semi-Patriarchal household sup- 
plied its place, and was much better. But how 
monstrous the perversion which has turned this 
most beautiful, and most benevolent, and wisest 
household arrangement which the world ever saw, 
into the villainous system of chattel slavery ! 
tempora ! mores J 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 159 



CHAPTER XVI. 

NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING CONCERNING SERVITUDE. 

The writers of the New Testament Jews — Hebrew and not Greek writers — True 
method of understanding any Language — New Testament usage main guide 
in interpreting New Testament Language — Mistake of Conybeare and How- 
son — Classic meaning of SouKo; — New Testament usage of SovKog — Infer- 
ences and Conclusions. 

It is impossible rightly to understand any ancient 
writings or documents, without taking into account 
the character and circumstances of the writers. Let 
us remember, then, that the writers of the New 
Testament were Jews, and, as writers, had the char- 
acter of Jews. All their previous education and 
training were Jewish, and not Grecian nor Roman. 
Their ideas, feelings, and modes of thought were 
thoroughly Jewish. They were bred in the He- 
brew family : indoctrinated in Hebrew law and 
religion. They wrote as Jews : they did not write 
either as Greeks or Romans. The fact that they 
used the Greek language does not militate against 
these statements at all. They wrote in the Greek 
language, because, in the providence of God, that 
was the common language of Western Asia at the 
time, and because it was the best language in which 
to have such inspired writings as theirs were, pre- 
served to the world. They were not, properly 
speaking, Greek writers, but Jewish writers using 



160 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

the Greek language. This is an all-important fact, 
to be understood and remembered. Says Dr. Kob- 
inson, in his preface to his Lexicon of the New Tes- 
tament : "The writers of the New Testament applied 
the Greek language to subjects on which it had 
never been employed by native Greek writers. No 
native Greek had ever written on Jewish affairs, 
nor on the Jewish theology and ritual. . Hence the 
seventy, in their translation, had often to employ 
Greek words as the signs of things and ideas which 
heretofore had been expressed only in Hebrew. In 
such a case, they could only select those Greek ivords 
lohieh most nearly corresponded to the Hebrew ; leav- 
ing the different shade or degree of signification to be 
gathered by the reader from the context." "Thus 
far the path was indeed already broken for the 
writers of the New Testament. But beyond this, 
they were to be the instruments of making known 
a new revelation, a new dispensation of mercy to 
mankind. Here was opened a wide circle of new 
ideas, and new doctrines to be developed, for which 
all human language was as yet too poor ; and this 
poverty was to be done away, even as at the pres- 
ent day, on the discovery and culture of a new 
science, chiefly by enlarging the signification and 
application of words already in xise, rather than by 
the formation of nexo ones." "The New Testament, 
then, was written by Hebrews, aiming to express 
Hebrew thoughts, conceptions, feelings, in the Greek 
tongue. Their idiom, consequently, in soul and 
spirit, is Hebrew ; in its external form, Greek, and 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 161 

that more or less pure, according to the facilities 
which an individnal writer may have possessed for 
acquiring fluency and accuracy of expression in 
that tong-ue." 

O 

^ No scholar will question the correctness of these 
views. In the progress of all languages, various 
words, more or less numerous, vary or change their 
meanings, to a greater or less extent, "in the 
transfer of words from one language to another, 
there will often be still greater changes in the 
meaning of the words so transferred. AVords, for 
example, introduced from foreign languages into 
the English, very generally have to be Anglicised 
to suit English mind and English modes of thought. 
The only proper method of ascertaining the t'rue 
meaning of such words in the English language, is 
to study their 2Jrescnt iisage in that language. A 
departure from this rule would lead to the grossest 
errors. Something indeed can be learned in regard 
to the force and meaning of words introduced into 
our language from foreign tongues, by studying 
both their primitive and derived meanings in those 
tongues from which they are transferred; yet to 
ascertain their exact shades of meaning, as now 
used in English, their present usage in the English 
must be studied. No man of sense ever thinks of 
disregarding this rule. No man of sense and of 
learning ever thinks of going to Cicero to learn 
what our Anglo-Latin word "auspices" now means. 
The Latin correspondent of this word was a favor- 
ite word with the great Roman orator, but in a 
14 



162 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

sense much different from that in which it is now 
used in English composition. It has been Angli- 
cised to meet and suit English mind and English 
modes of thought. 

This rule has a large, special, and important 
application to the Greek of the New Testament. 
The Greek language of the New Testament is hea- 
then, Attic Greek, Hebraized to meet and suit 
Christianized Hebrew mind and modes of thought. 
To understand it we need, to be sure, a knowledge 
of classic Greek, but we need more a thorough 
knowledge of Hebrew mind and thought, and of 
Christian ideas and experiences. We need to study 
the language of the New Testament in the light of 
the New Testament, and of the Old Testament, 
in order to understand it. Heathen classic usage 
can never fully and properly expound for us the 
sense of the New Testament. 

Hence, most manifestly, the scope and teachings 
of the New Testament in regard to the particular 
subject of servitude, can never be properly under- 
stood simply by a study of old Grecian and Roman 
customs, and the usages of words in ancient Grecian 
literature. These may furnish some help, but they 
by no means constitute the standard of interpreta- 
tion. To make them the standard would lead to 
the grossest errors. As a representative example 
of this sort of mistake, we have a notable instance 
in Conybeare and Howson's translation of Paul's 
Epistles. Those learned authors have undertaken 
to translate the New Testament word, douXo<;, by 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 163 

the English word " slave, '^ or "bondsman" in the 
sense of slave. This is both a classical and a her- 
meneutical blunder. The English word "slave" is 
v^y considerably narrower in signification than 
even the classical usage of the Greek word dooXo^. 
It often refers, in classic Greek, to servants that 
are not slaves: to unchattelized, free servants.* 
It quite commonly", to be sure, refers to slaves, but 
it frequently has a wider sense, referring to serv- 
ants that are not slaves. So that it is an abuse even 
of classical usage to restrict this word, in any author, 
to the exclusive, specific sense oi " slave," and obsti- 
nately attach this particular sense to the word 
wherever found, without regard to the character, 
subject, or scope of the author. Simple classic 
usage, therefore, should have taught these learned 
authors better than to make Paul call himself the 
"bondsman," or " slave" of the Lord Jesus Christ, as 
they have very foolishly done in several instances. 
We strongly opine that the Good Shepherd does 

'•"Many writers have been misled by the frequent application of the word 
iouKti;, in classic Greek, to slaves, and so have mistaken its true sense. In a 
slaveholding community the general word for servant will often be applied to 
blaves. Slaves are servants : or rather they are both servants and slaves. 
Hence the Greeks, among whom slavery existed, applied the general term 
SouKoi to their slaves. The general sense, however, often appears in classic 
usage, though the term is freely applied to slaves. But this frequent applica- 
tion of the term to slaves, is not the least indication that the word is not 
properly a general term. Our English word servant is very much applied to 
Blaves in our Southern states ; but for all that, the word properly means servant. 
In the general sense, and would, if slaves existed wherever the English language 
is known, and this word was everywhere much applied to them. So of SauKoi, 
Its proper sense, as a general term, is not disturbed in the least by its frequent 
application, by the slaveholding Greeks, to their slaves. Its primary, general 

sense frequently crops out in classic usage. " Apud Xenoph, Anab 

satrapa regius SovKof vocatur." — Sclileuaner. 



164 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

not care to bo announced in this world as the great 
shivehohler of the universe! Even classic usage 
docs not quite necessitate this. To take one par- 
ticular application of a word, and restrict its usage 
and meaning exclusively and specifically to that, is 
very unclassic indeed. To do this with the Greek 
word doukoCj as used in the New Testament, is 
manufacturing gospel-slaveholding at a rapid rate 
truly. If these gentlemen were not Englishmen, we 
should be tempted to suspect cotton somewhere. 

In the second place, the word do~j?M^ has figura- 
tive and other uses in the New Testament which 
utterly forbid the notion that it was used by the 
sacred writers as a specific term for "slave:" uses 
which the word "slave," in its modern sense, never 
does have and never could have. 

Before referring to particular passages, we wish 
to remind the reader of the fact that this word is 
of very frequent occurrence in the New Testament. 
It occurs at least one hundred and twenty-five 
times. If it should be translated slave in every 
instance, we verily believe it would frighten the 
most hardy translator and the most stolid reader. 
Such a translation would fill the New Testament 
with discourse about slaves, and people the land of 
Judea, in Apostolic times, thick with slaves, whereas 
the truth is, as Dr. Kitto and other biblical scholars 
aflirm, there were neither slaves nor slavery there 
at the time. 

In referring to passages to exhibit the New Tes- 
tament usage of the word douXo:;, doulos, we will 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 165 

take the first example of its use that occurs in each 
book of the New Testament, until we have gone as 
far ae the patience of the reader will permit. Matt, 
viii : 9 — " For I am a man under authority, having 
soldiers under me : and I say to this man, go, and 
he goeth ; and to another, come, and he cometh ; 
and to my 'servant,' do this, and he doeth it." 
The use of the word in such a passage as this de- 
termines nothing one way or another. The "serv- 
ant''' alluded to may have been a free servant, or a 
slave servant, for aught the passage itself shows : 
so we will leave it. The word in question, however, 
is used thirty times in the book of Matthew, rightly 
translated servant, in the general sense. In several 
of these places, to translate it slave, is wholly inad- 
missible. But we will pass on, confining ourselves 
to the first example in each book, in order that the 
reader may not accuse us of unfairness. Mark, x : 
44 — " And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, 
shall be 'servant' of all." This was spoken especi- 
ally to the apostles, after the two sons of Zebedee, 
James and John, had made request of Jesus that 
they might sit, one on his right hand and the other 
on his left hand in his glory. Let us put in the 
word slave, instead of the word " servant," and see 
how it will then read, which will give us exactly the 
right sense, if dooXo:;, doulos, is the specific term for 
slave, and properly means slave. "And whosover 
of you will be the chiefest, shall be 'slave' of all." 
This makes either supreme nonsense, or sense su- 
premely base. Slave service, and the service of love 



166 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

and good-will referred to in this passage, are totally 
different. In no sense is lie that renders the latter 
a slave. Of all persons he is furthest removed from 
slavery. It is infinitely absurd to use the word 
slave in any such sense. And where, in all the 
usage of language in modern times, can we find a 
similar example ? Such a usage is preposterous and 
unnatural. We never meet with it. The free serv- 
ice of love and good-will, such as the law of God 
requires, makes any man who renders it " chief est ' 
of all. This is the noblest service that can be ren- 
dered, and makes any man who renders it the noblest 
"servant'' — a royal ^'servant'' in God's moral king- 
dom. But it is simply supremely ridiculous to call 
such an individual a slave. 

The first example in Luke is found, ii : 29 — " Lord, 
now lettest thou thy 'servant' depart in peace, ac- 
cording to thy word." These are the words of 
Simeon, spoken in the temple, when he took the 
child Jesus up in his arms, and blessed God that 
his eyes had been permitted to see the great salva- 
tion. Was Simeon, then, one of God's old slaves ? 
Does the word slave give us a right idea of his char- 
acter and relations to God ? Is there a peculiar 
fitness in speaking of him as God's old slave ? If 
dovXoi;, doulos, meant slave, these questions must be 
answered in the affirmative. The absurdity of this 
is suificiently apparent. But let us pass on. John 
iv: 51 — "And as he was now going down, his 'serv- 
a7its ' met him, and told him, saying, Thy son liveth." 
There is surely nothing here to prove that the word 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 1G7 

means slave.' Acts ii : 18 — "And on my 'servants' 
and on my hand-maidens I will pour out in those 
days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy." Here 
again, if the word translated " servants' meant slaves, 
we have God set forth as a slaveholder. In what 
community on the face of the earth is it natural 
and edifying to Christian people either to speak or 
think of God, the great Father, in this light? The 
word " servant,'' in its freest and best sense, exactly 
gives the meaning : the word slave gives a sense 
that is sufficiently shocking. Eom, i: 1 — "Paul, a 
servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle." 
Paul a slave of Jesus Christ. But Christ took upon 
himself the form of a dooXo^, doulos, "slave." Paul, 
then, was the slave of the slave Jesus Christ. All 
this is perfectly fit, and nicely rhetorical and beauti- 
ful, if slave is the true meaning of the word. 1 Cor. 
vii : 21 — "Art thou called being a ^servant?' care 
not for it." Whether a chattelized or an unchattel- 
ized servant, of course this passage does not neces- 
sarily teach. If, however, ''servant" means slave, 
then we venture to affirm that the direction which 
follows is one which it is impossible to obey. No 
man, in his senses, can be a chattel slave and not 
care for it. The command is a good deal more than 
human nature, or rather the human soul, can bear. 
The poor slave may be able to endure his wrongful 
bondage patiently, but to command him "not to 
care for it" is commanding more than he can per- 
form, until his manhood is all whipped and crushed 
out of him. We can never believe that God ever 



168 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

laid such a command upon the suffering and robbed 
slave. 2 Cor. iv: 5 — ''For we preach not our- 
selves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves 
your ^servants' for Jesus' sake." We do not believe 
that Paul ever designed to call himself the slave of 
any man or men. He was, above all others, next 
to his Divine Master, the "servant" of all, to render 
to them the cordial service of love and good-will : 
but he was no man's slave. 

We will pursue these quotations no further. These 
examples may be taken as fair specimens of the man- 
ner in which this word, dooXoz, doulos, is used in the 
New Testament. John, the Eevelator, applies this 
same word to himself, to the prophets, to Moses, and 
to the inhabitants of heaven. How incongruous and 
preposterous to make such an application of the 
word "slave!" In multitudes of passages in the 
New Testament, to translate douh^, doulos, by our 
word slave, makes the most consummate nonsense. 
We do not believe that there is a single instance of 
its use in the New Testament that will bear this 
translation. This word is rightly translated by our 
general term "servant," in its free sense, or in its 
most general sense.* 

'''■ Wo have not room to niulti])!y authorities : ami should not have extended 
this discussion to such length, if some very modern translators and interpreters 
had not made apparently desperate cfl'orts to limit tlie vord ooC>.oc, in the New 
Testament, to tlie si)eoilic sense of slai-e. But vo can not forbear quoting tlio 
following from Schleusner, in regard to the meaning of this word in the Greek 
Scriptures: 

" Apud GraecoB Scriptt. latins interdum patct ct omnino enm significat, qiii 
oUqua, quiTcttnijue tandem sit, ralinne alterius imperio mbcsl." — Lex. Gracco-Lat-' 
iuum iu Kovum Xostameutum : Art. SavKof. Tlio substanco of this is, that thia 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 169 

As this is the only word which is often translated 
" servayit" in the New Testament, and the only word 
to which the sense slave can, with any show of 
reason, be attached, we wish to present other con- 
siderations to confirm the statement just made. 

1. In the first place, then, let it be again dis- 
tinctly noted that, in the Greek language the word 
doi)).o<;, doulos, is a general, and not a specific term. 
Says Dr. Albert Barnes : " The Greeks used the 
term dooXo^, doulos, to express servitude in the most 
general form, whatever might be the method by 
which the obligation to service originated." This 
is, unquestionably, the character and usage of the 
word in the Greek lansruao-e. In connection with 
this, let it also be remembered that the Greek had 
another word which was the proper and specific 
word for slave. " The proper word to denote a 
slave, with reference to the master's right of pro- 
perty in him, and without regard to the relations 
and ofiices in which he was employed, was not dou- 
?.o^, doidos, but d]jdpd::ooov, andrapodon." "They," 
the Greeks, "used" this latter term "to denote a 
slave regarded as property." — Dr. Barnes. The 
Greek language, then, furnished the writers of the 
New Testament with the general term, dohXoc:, dou- 
los, having precisely the sense of our English word 
"servant," in its general signification; and with the 
specific term dvdpd-odov, andrapodon, having the 

word frequenttj" has a wide signification in the Greek Scriptures, and eignifiea, 
in general, one who, for any reason whatever, is under the authority of another ; 
that is, servant, in the general sense, as we have it in our English translation. 

15 



170 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

sense of our word "slave,'" in its specific sense. The 
two words were always at hand for use : one to mean 
" servant,'' in the general sense, and the other to 
mean "slave." 

2. The law which should and would guide the 
writers of the New Testament in the use of these 
words, is manifest. That law is this : when they 
wished to give a specific sense, they would use the 
specific term; that is, they would use the word that 
means " slave," when that was simply and specific- 
ally the sense they wished to convey : when they 
washed to give a general sense, they would use the 
general term ; that is, they would use the word that 
means "servant," in the general sense, when that 
was their meaning. The only exception to this rule 
is when the general term that means "servant" is 
so modified by the connection and other additional 
words as to necessitate the specific sense of "slave." 
"When, therefore, the word oo'jAo^, doulos, " serv- 
ant," is used in the New Testament, the general 
sense must always be understood, unless the con- 
nection and other words so modify the signification 
in a particular case as to necessitate a specific mean- 
ing. To illustrate : the word " servant," in English, 
unmodified, means any servant, or servant in the 
general sense: a chattelized servant, regarded and 
held as property, means a slave. The modifying 
words give the general term a specific sense. But 
where there are no modifying words and circum- 
stances, the general sense remains. Now, let the 
reader mark two tacts. (1.) The specific and proper 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 171 

word for slave, dvdod-odou, andrapodon, "slave,'' 
is never once used in the New Testament. It does 
not belong to New Testament literature. There it 
was, in the language, with just as much aptitude for 
use, if needed, as ooulo^, doidos, "servant" It was 
always at hand, just as easy of use as the other, if 
it had been wanted. It was not once wanted. If 
the writers had wished to say slave in any instance, 
here was the word for it. The inevitable conclusion 
is, that in the cases where they use the word that 
means "servant,'' they did not mean simply and 
specifically, "slave;" or that they so modified and 
restricted the general term "servant," as to give it 
the specific sense of "slave." (2.) This leads us to 
the other fact, namely, that in no case in the New 
Testament is the word douXo-, doidos, " servant " so 
modified as to necessitate the sense of slave. Being 
a general term, it must be so modified by the con- 
nection and other words, in order to mean slave. 
But in no case in the New Testament is it so modi- 
fied. We have examined all the places where the 
word occurs, and do not hesitate to make this state- 
ment. The passages in which there is the most 
appearance of this will be examined in another 
chapter. The conclusion, then, is inevitable and 
irrefragable, that the word dooXo^, doulos, "servant," 
never has the limited and specific sense of slave 
in the New Testament. 

3. In confirmation of all this, it may be observed 
further, that this accords exactly with Hebrew mind 
and usage. The writers of the New Testament, 



172 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

with Jesus Christ, were Hebrews : christianized He- 
brews, trained up and mokled under the influence 
of Hebrew ideas, modes of thought, and customs. 
This fact, as forcibly stated in the quotation already 
made from Dr. Pbobinson, had all to do with their 
style of composition and use of the G-reek language. 
We have seen that, as a matter of fact, these writers 
avoided the specific word in Greek which means 
slave, and employed the general term which means 
servant. This is just what might have been expected 
of such Hebrew writers. As we have seen, slavery 
never existed in the Hebrew nation : slaves were 
never held there. The Hebrew mind was not ac- 
customed to either, and had no words for either. 
It was accustomed to free servitude, and free serv- 
ants of various classes : it had words for these. It 
had seen, from time to time, much oppression of 
free servants, and was accustomed, both without and 
with the inspiration of the Almighty, to denounce 
such oppression. Its Hebrew word for "servant," 
like our English word servant, was a general term 
meaning any sort of servant. The origin and his- 
tory of the word, and the laws and usages of the 
people, would always secure to this word a free 
sense. Now, in using the Greek language, in what 
sense would Hebrew writers be likely to use a similar 
and corresponding general term in that language? 
But one answer can be given to this question. 
Nothing could be more unnatural and absurd than 
to suppose that they would use such a word as a 
specific term for slave. No similar instance of the 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 173 

use of words can be found in the literature of the 
world. But nothing could be more natural than 
that they should employ the general Greek term 
dou?.0!;, doulos, "servant," precisely as they had been 
accustomed to use the corresponding Hebrew term. 
This they have done. 

4. One thing more. The word "servant," in a 
free community where slavery does not exist, usually 
refers in its usage to free servants. It is applied to 
all classes of servants that exist in that community. 
It is capable of a wider sense, to be sure, and may 
be extended to include all sorts of servants every- 
where. But common usage in a community where 
slavery does not exist, would apply the word to such 
servants as actually do exist there, that is, to all 
sorts of free servants, since slave servants are ex- 
cluded by the supposition. And this is the common 
use of the word "servant" in these Northern states, 
where slavery does not exist. The word is applied 
to any class of free servants ; or, when extended in 
its signification and application, any servants what- 
ever. When individual servants, or classes of serv- 
ants are spoken of in a free community, it is under- 
stood that the servants are free servants. "When the 
term is used in its widest and most general sense, as 
it often is, then the meaning is understood to be any 
servant or servants whatever. When a kitchen serv- 
ant is referred to, the assumption always is, in a free 
community, that that servant is a free servant : when 
a factory servant is referred to, the assumption is 
that that servant is a free servant. So generally. 



174 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

When the word "servant" is used without qualifi- 
cation, and in the widest sense, then it means any 
sort of servant whatever. But the simple word 
"servant," unqualified, never has the specific sense 
of slave, in a community where slavery does not 
exist. It may mean some particular, individual free 
servant, or any free servant whatever, or any serv- 
ant whatever: but it never means specifically a 
slave. 

Now, it is notorious that there was no slavery in 
Palestine in the time of Christ and when the New 
Testament was written. Christ lived and taught in 
a non-slaveholding community. The writers of the 
New Testament were brought up, and lived, and 
wrote in a non-slaveholding community. Their na- 
tion had always been a non-slaveholding nation. 
They had always, as native Hebrews, been accus- 
tomed to non-slaveholding and free society ideas 
and usages, and to the use of a general term, in the 
Hebrew language, precisely like our general word 
"servant" They found a corresponding word in the 
Greek language, and used it. The inference is irre- 
sistible that they would use that word, which is dou- 
Xo^, doulos, first, in its proper sense as a general 
term, and secondly, in accordance with the ideas and 
usages of free society. This would entirely exclude 
from the word, in its simple and unmodified form, 
the specific sense of slave. AVhcn, therefore, the 
simple, unmodified term ooDAoc, doulos, "servant" 
occurs, we are to understand cither any or all classes 
of servants, or free servants. By no legitimate pos- 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 175 

sibility can we get any nearer the signification slave. 
The simple, unmodified term dooXo^, doulos, "serv- 
ant," can never mean slave, in the New Testament, 
without violating all rules of logic and sound inter- 
pretation. If it ever means slave, it must be because 
the connection and other qualifying words necessi- 
tate such meaning. Whether it is ever used in this 
way will be discussed in another chapter. 



176 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 



CHAPTER XVII. 

EXPOSITION OF PASSAGES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 
WRITINGS WHICH SPEAK OF THE DUTIES OF 



MASTERS. 



Ejph. vi: 9; Col iv: 1. 



Is the word ooolo::^ servant, ever so modified in 
its use in the New Testament as necessarily to 
restrict its meaning to the specific sense of slave? 
"We have demonstrated, in the preceding chapter, 
that it must be so modified in order to have tliat 
specific sense: is it so modified? 

1. If it is so modified as necessarily to mean 
slave, then we have the singular fact, that in every 
case where the writers of the New Testament wished 
to say slave, they, in every such instance, used a cir- 
cumlocution with a multiplication of words to express 
that sense, instead of using the single, specific word 
in the Greek language which means slave. In 
other words, we have the singular fact that all the 
writers of the New Testament, when they wished 
to say slave, duopd-ooov, andrapodon, always said 
servant, dooXoi;, doidos, so modified as to limit its 
signification to the sense of slave, that is, slave 
servant. This certainly appears very unlikely. 

2. In the second place, if servant, oouao;, donlos, 
modified, is the uniform mode of saying slave in the 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 177 

New Testament, the modifying words, adjuncts, 
and circumstances ought to be very definite and 
unequivocah For dou?.o^, doulos, can not be uni- 
formly translated slave in the New Testament with- 
out making the grossest nonsense in most of the 
jjlaces where it is used. If, therefore, in some few 
cases it really means slave, it ought to be, and would 
be, so modified as to make this sense unequivocal. 
For how else could it be known when it meant 
slave, and when it meant servant, in the general 
sense? We are to look, then, for a modification 
that shall be distinct and unequivocal, and that can 
not be mistaken. 

3, It is, however, only by examining particular 
passages that we can determine whether the word 
servant, dobXo^, doulos, is so modified as necessa- ♦ 
rily to limit its signification to the simple sense of 
slave. It would be needless to examine all the pas- 
sa2;es in the New Testament in which the word 
occurs, in reference to this question. We will take 
all the passages where directions and commands are 
given to servants, ddbXoc, doidoi, or to masters. 
These are really all the passages that relate to this 
discussion. 

All these passages are found in the writings of 
Paul. Those which speak of the duties of masters 
are only two : Eph. vi : 9, and Col. iv : 1. Those 
which refer to the duties of servants are the five 
following : 1 Cor. vii : 20-24 ; Eph. vi : 5-8 ; Col. iii : 
22-25 ; 1 Tim. vi : 1-5 ; Titus, ii : 9, 10. Let us 
quote and carefully examine each of these passages, 



178 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

and see, if we can, wlietlier tliey are so modified 
that the servants spoken of therein are, of necessity, 
slave-servants, or rather servants who are also slaves, 
or, more correctly still, simply slaves without refer- 
ence to the question of service at all. And while 
we are doing this, to save time and space, and to 
avoid repeating quotations, we wish also to give a 
general exposition of these several passages as we go 
along. These two things may be conducted together, 
and mutually assist each other. 

First passage: Eph. vi : 9 — "And, ye masters, 
do the same things unto them, forbearing threat- 
ening : knowing that your Master also is in heaven ; 
neither is there respect of persons with him." 

In this passage the word ooolo^, doulos, "serv- 
ant " does not occur. This word, however, is found 
in immediate connection, and the pronoun "them" 
refers back to this word in the preceding verses. 
Its meaning, of course, is to be ascertained by 
referring to its antecedent. This will be examined 
when we come to consider the verses in connection, 
as speaking of the duties of servants. There is 
nothing in this verse itself which can possibly 
modify the pronoun them, so as to limit and refer 
its signification to slaves, except the word masters. 
If the word masters means slave-oivning masters, 
then the word them, as referring back to servants, 
means slaves. If "masters" in this verse means 
slaveholders, of course the servants belonging to 
them are slaves. But there is nothing in this word 
*^ masters" to indicate that it refers to slavcholdinc: 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 179 

masters. The Greek Avord for ''masters,'' in this 
passage, is usually translated " lord;' in the New 
Testament. It is of very frequent occurrence, and 
is applied to Jesus Christ much more frequently 
than to any one else. Its proper sense is not 
slaveholder, by any means. It is applied to any 
individual who occupies a station of superintendance, 
control, or authority. It has no reference to prop- 
erty-ownership in those under control. It is a 
proper word for all sorts of servants to use in 
referring to and designating their masters. It is a 
suitable word to apply to all sorts of persons that 
have the control of others — to all sorts of masters. 
In the verse before us it undoubtedly means mas- 
ters in the general sense : all sorts of masters ; and 
has no special reference to slaveholders whatever. 
There is nothing, therefore, in this passage which 
necessitates its reference to slaves or slaveholders. 
There is absolutely nothing which looks particularly 
in that direction. 

The other passage, addressed particularly to mas- 
ters, and defining their duties, is found in Col. iv: 
1. ''Masters give unto your servants that which is 
just and equal ; knowing that ye also have a Master 
in heaven." 

The same word is used here to mean " masters " 
as in the other passage, quoted from Ephesians. 
This same word occurs also in the latter part of the 
verse. If slaves and slaveholders are meant here, it 
will exactly give the sense to substitute these words 
for the words "servants " and " masters." We shall 



180 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

tben get the full import and beauty of the passage. 
" Slaveholders give unto your slaves that which is 
just and equal : knowing that ye also have a slave- 
holder in heaven." The truth is, the word " vias- 
ters," as already shown, does not mean slave-owning 
masters specifically. The word " servants " is un- 
modified, and, consequently, can not have the specific 
sense of slave. 

There is, therefore, absolutely nothing at all in 
either of these passages to necessitate or demand a 
particular reference to slaves and slaveholders. In 
neither of them are the terms used so modified as to 
indicate such reference. And, let it b? remembered, 
there is not the least authority for giving them such 
reference without such modification. 

To confirm all this, it may be remarked further, 
(1.) That so discriminating a writer as Paul would 
be very likely to say slaves and slaveholders, in some 
way very distinctly, if he meant exactly that and 
nothing else. He knew the difference well between 
general and specific statements, and knew very well 
how to make both very clearly. As a matter of 
fact, he has used only general terms unqualified, 
and it is altogether proper to conclude that his 
sense is general. If he had meant any particular sort 
of masters, in these passages, he was abundantly com- 
petent to say so. That he was not afraid to say so, is 
abundantly proved, from the fact that he has cata- 
logued "men- stealer 8," in his First Epistle to Timo- 
thy, with "liars," "whore-mongers," and "murder- 
ers," for whom the law of God was especially made. 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 181 

(2.) The view wliicli we take is further confirmed " 
by the consideration, that, if these two passages 
under examination, which speak of the duties of 
masters, refer specifically to that particular class of 
masters who are slaveholders, then, in all Paul's 
writings, and in all the New Testament, we have 
not one solitary direction, or command, or exhorta- 
tion, or instruction, addressed to any other sort or 
sorts of masters. Who believes that such a writer 
as Paul would single out slaveholding masters and 
give directions and commands to them, and leave all 
other masters wholly out of the account ? Who be- 
lieves that the teachings of the entire New Testa- 
ment wholly pass by all masters, except slaveholders ? 
But so it is, if these two passages refer specifically 
to slaveholders. The truth of the matter is, the 
language of these passages is general, and the sense 
is general. They refer to masters in the general 
sense, and are limited to no one class in particular. 

(3.) One thing more. These directions, manifestly, 
assume the continuance of the relation involved in 
the terms servant and onaster. If these terms mean 
slave and slaveholder, then the relation is that of 
slave and owner. Now, mark : these directions are 
totally impossible to that relalJon. They can not be 
applied to it without annihilating it, any more than 
you can apply the Sermon on the Mount to the lib- 
ertine, without breaking up the relation which he 
sustains to Ins mistresses. The directions given 
are such as would instantly change all sorts of 
masters into upright and righteous non-slavehold- 



182 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

ing masters. They directly and positively forbid all 
regarding, treating, and holding of human beings as 
property. They absolutely and forever cut off all 
trespass upon personal manhood rights. No man 
can give to his servant that which is "just," and 
regard him as property. Such regarding is gross 
injustice — injustice per se. No man can give to his 
servant that which is "just," and treat him as pro- 
perty. Such treating is gross injustice — injustice 
per se. No man can give to his servant that which 
is "just," and hold him as property. Such holding 
is gross injustice— injustice per se. The moment the 
slaveholder gives to his slaveservant that which is 
"just," he ceases to regard, or treat, or hold him as 
property. The moment he does that, he ceases to be 
a slaveholder, and his slaveservant drops the slave, 
and becomes a servant. No man can give to his 
servant that which is "equal," and regard him as 
property. All such regarding is great degradation- 
partial and unequal. No man can give to his serv- 
ant that which is "equal," and treat him as property. 
All such treating is great degradation — partial and 
unequal. No man can give to his servant that which 
is "equal," and hold him as property. All such 
holding is great degradation— partial and unequal. 
And there is not a slave-owner on all the face of the 
earth who would not so judge, if the tables were 
turned, and the chattel principle should fasten its 
base grip upon himself. It is utterly impossible to 
apply these directions to the relation of slave-serv- 
ants and slave-masters without abolishing the rela- 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 183 

tion of slave and owner. As, therefore, these direc- 
tions evidently contemplate the continuance of the re- 
lation involved in the terms master and servant, that 
relation could not have been that of slave and owner : 
for the moment they touch that relation they anni- 
hilate it. 

The moral legislation in these two passages is very 
remarkable — remarkable for its brevity, breadth, and 
completeness. It is applicable to all masters, and 
covers the whole ground of mastership. It recog- 
nizes human equality fully; and, by one single en- 
actment, imposes the great law of love upon all 
masters on the face of the earth. It instantly trans- 
mutes all masters, whether in English factories, on 
Yankee farms, on board pirate vessels, in the gene- 
ral's tent, in banditti dens, on slave plantations, in 
Turkish seraglios, or anywhere else on God's earth, 
into upright, righteous, non-slaveholding, and non- 
oppressing masters, regarding, treating, and holding 
their servants as equal men, and sacredly regarding 
all their rights as such. It is legislation that is per- 
fect, final, and universal. It really embraces all that 
needs to be said to all sorts of masters. It gives 
them full liberty to exist, but puts them all alike 
under the great law of equal manhood, equal bro- 
therhood, equal creatureship before God. This law 
instantly abolishes all chattelhood, all trespass upon 
personal manhood rights, all oppression, all injustice, 
all partial and unequal respect of persons. Such is 
the breadth and completeness of New Testament 
legislation for masters. In its atmosphere no slave- 
owner can draw a single breath. 



184 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

OF THE DUTIES OF SERVANTS. 

Sec. 1.— 1 Cor. vii: 20-24. 

In examining those passages wliicli refer to the 
duties of servants, the question before us is, Whether 
there is any thing in them which so modifies the 
word servant as necessarily to restrict its significa- 
tion to the sense of slave'? The question in regard 
to each passage is, "Is it so modified as to malie it 
clearly and unequivocally refer specifically to slaves ? " 
It must be so modified, else such sense can not be 
admitted. 

We will examine and comment upon these pas- 
sages in their order. 

1 Cor. vii : 20-24 — "Let every man abide in the 
same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called 
beino; a servant? Care not for it: but if thou mavest 
be made free, use it rather. For he that is called 
in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: 
likewise, also, he that is called, being free, is Christ's 
servant. Ye are bought with a price ; be not ye 
the servants of men. Brethren, let every man, 
wherein he is called, therein abide with God." 

In this passage the Apostle lays down the "gen- 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 185 

eral rule that converts should not quit that state of 
life wherein they were at conversion." To illustrate 
the rule, he adduces the case of servants. Now, in 
this whole passage, there is neither word, phrase, 
nor circumstance that in any way modifies the 
term douXo^^ doulos, ^'servants," so as in the least 
to limit or restrict its meanina;. It is used through- 
out in its unmodified, general sense. "Art thou 
called, being a servant?" Any sort of servant. 
As far as the simple inquiry before us is concerned, 
nothing more is necessary to be said. To multiply 
words is labor simply to prove a negative, when 
there is nothing to establish the afiirmative. But 
in regard to the general sense of this passage, one 
or two things need to be remembered. 

1. It should be particularly noticed, that the 
direction given in this passage is a general and not 
a universal rule. In the nature of the case, it can 
not be universal. (1.) It must be . limited by the 
nature of the condition or calling in which the con- 
vert to Christianity found himself. That condition, 
or calling, must be a right and righteous calling, 
else the direction itself is incorrect and improper. 
" Let every man abide in the same calling wherein 
he was called," with the implied limitation that the 
calling itself is right and proper. The calling of the 
servant is such; and although it is better, on many 
accounts, to be a free man than to be a servant, yet, 
if needful, there is nothing degrading or improper 
in being a servant. Servitude is a necessity of 
human society ; and if a man will throw aside the 
16 



186 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

feeling of slavish inferiority, and assert his own 
proper manhood as the creature of God and honored 
servant of Christ, it matters but little if his calling 
be that of a servant. But the calling of the Thugs 
in India, who pretend to have a special, divine 
appointment to strangle, murder, and rob their 
fellow-beings for a livelihood, is an unrighteous 
and iniquitous calling : and this rule can not apply- 
to that. It can not apply to any unrighteous and 
iniquitous calling whatever. As a general rule, it is 
good for a man to abide in the calling wherein he 
is called, provided always that calling is right and 
righteous. (2.) This rule must have another limit- 
ation. It is good for a man to abide by this rule, 
if he has chosen the calling to which he is adapted. 
No man in his senses supposes that Dr. Milnor or 
President Finney violated this rule, and sinned 
against God, in abandoning the calling of the law 
for that of the Gospel ministry. If a man mistakes 
his calling at first, this rule surely allows him to 
correct his mistake. 

There may be other exceptions to this rule. In 
the nature of things the rule is a general one, sub- 
ject to several limitations. It will not do, therefore, 
to insist that, according to this apostolic direction, 
the slave must remain a slave, because that is his 
calling. On the contrary, we insist that this rule 
has no application whatever to slaves, as rendering 
slave service. Unchattelized servitude is a right- 
eous and needful calling. Slave servitude is an 
unrighteous, unneedful, and iniquitous calling. The 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 187 

calling of a servant is right and proper, and no 
degradation, though compassed about with some 
disadvantages. The calling of a slave is abnormal 
and unfit— an evil to be escaped from. And this 
rule of the Apostle has no more application to 
slaves than it has to the imprisoned victims of 
piracy on the high seas. What if the pirate chief 
should very piously begin to preach from the Bible 
to his captured victims the propriety of their quiet- 
ly " abiding in their calling" as prisoners? How 
ridiculous, absurd, and impious! But not a whit 
more ridiculous and impious than is the pious 
whining of slaveholders about their slaves abiding 
quietly in the same calling wherein they were called. 
How came the slave to be in the degrading and 
iniquitous calling of a slave? Precisely as the vic- 
tims of the pirate crew on the high seas are in the 
calling of prisoners on board the pirate vessel : by 
force and robbery! Every slave is the victim of 
gross robbery, and a practical compulsion which he 
can not resist; and it would be just as fit and 
agreeable to right reason and the moral sense for the 
pirate chief to apply this Bible rule about keep- 
ing to one's calling, to his prisoners, and tell them 
that that was their ^'calling," and that they ought 
to be faithful and obedient in it, as it is for pro- 
slavery people to seek to daub over the slaves with 
this same Apostolic mortar, to whom it was never 
tempered, and for whom it was never designed. 
Chattelhood is not a calling : it is only a stupend- 
ous wrong, affixed by human selfishness to the 



188 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

righteous calling of the servant. The slaveholder 
has no right to "abide" at all in perpetrating it: 
and the slave is under no obligation to abide in 
subjection to it. It is a good rule that all people, 
even servants of all classes, should keep to their 
respective callings, provided they are right and 
righteous, and they are adapted to them. This is 
common sense. But to stretch the rule beyond 
this is simple perversion. Neither Indian Thugs, 
nor pirates, nor gamblers, nor slaveholders, nor 
men-stealers, nor rum-sellers, can find any shelter 
under this good and wholesome Apostolic injunction. 
None of these things pertain to the servitude of 
which the Apostle is speaking in this passage under 
consideration.. They are no part nor portion of it. 
They do not belong to it. They constitute no ele- 
ment of it. They are simply illegal and contra- 
band super-additions, to which the injunctions of 
this passage have no application. 

2. "But if thou may est be made free, use it 
rather." It is better, on many accounts, to have the 
full reponsibilities of a free citizen and manager of 
one's own affairs, free from all dictation and control 
from others, than to occupy the inferior station of 
a servant. There are many advantages in being an 
independent citizen, at the head of one's own affairs, 
over any position of service for others. This, too, 
is common sense. It is safe, encouraging, and elevat- 
ing advice for all unchattelizcd servants engaged in 
a right and righteous servitude, of whatever sort. 
The spirit of this advice inspires the heart of the 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 189 

field laborer, the factory operative, the apprentice 
in the shop, the servant everywhere. It is good 
advice for him to hear, to receive, and to follow : 
good for himself, good for his employer, and good 
for the [)ublic. It is perfectly adapted to his rela- 
tions : in perfect harmony with them. But who 
does not see that this is advice totally unadapted 
to the relations of chattel slaves ? What mean the 
Southern police and slave-catching blood-hounds, 
our fugitive slave laws, and all this hue and cry 
about enticing slaves away from their owners, if the 
apostolic advice, divinely given, is, that slaves should 
seek to gain their freedom ? Who does not know 
that such advice as this is totally impracticable, and 
not to be tolerated, for a single moment, in any slave- 
holding community ? and that it would produce end- 
less colliaion and warfare between slaves and their 
owners ? Given the relation of slave and owner, and 
establish that, and this apostolic advice is totally 
inadmissible. 

3. There is other bad advice in this passage to be 
given to slaves. It is that "the higher law" is to 
be their undeviating rule of action. " For he that 
is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's 
freeman : likewise also he that is called beina; free, 
is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a price; 
be not ye the servants of men." Every servant, 
then, is bought with a price away from all service 
to men, to be supremely the servant of Christ. 
This is in direct conflict with the authority which 
every slaveholder must assume and exercise over his 



190 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

chattel slave. It is in direct conflict with the au- 
thority which the pirate chief must exercise over his 
imprisoned captives. It is advice which exalts obe- 
dience to Christ above every thing else, and makes 
every other service subservient to that. It is ad- 
vice which can be given with safety and propriety 
only to men and women unchattelized. For them, 
though servants, it is good, and wholesome, and 
safe. 

4. ''Ye are bought with a price." To understand 
this as a figurative allusion to the slave trafiic, in 
which, with infinite degradation and wrong, human 
beings are bought and sold as chattel property like 
the dumb brutes, and, as thus illustrating the rela- 
tion which Christ sustains to his people, as many do, 
is certainly monstrous enough. To make Christ 
call himself the slaveholder of his people, and to 
make him call them his slaves, is surely a great 
outrage upon Christian common sense. Some com- 
mentators, who have done this in one or two in- 
stances, have not had courage to carry the shocking 
indecency straight through the Bible, as consistency 
demanded. It sounds a little too bad for the most 
stolid Bible interpreter to make the "voice that 
came out" of "the great white throne" say, "Praise 
our God, all ye his slaves;" (Rev. xix: 5;) and to 
surround that throne with slaves, with Moses and the 
prophets among the number ! Such ideas of the 
rchxtions of God to his people, and of Ilim to them, 
are manifestly too grossly unfit to boar much repe- 
tition. 



NEW TESTAMLNT SERVITUDE. 191 

The beauty of this figurative language, which Paul 
uses more than once, " Ye are bought with a price," 
can be fully understood only by referring to the 
ancient idea of servitude. Anciently, and always 
among the Jews, the servants were unchattelized 
servants ; and yet they were called " bought with 
money." This phrase, " bought with money," de- 
scribes a common transaction in the Hebrew family, 
and connected with the economy of the Hebrew 
household ; namely, that by which individuals, with- 
out infringing in the least upon their true and 
proper manhood, were attached to the Hebrew 
household, by buying. Money was paid : on this 
condition the individual united himself voluntarily 
to the household, to be under its government and 
control, and to do service therefor. This service 
was voluntary, cordial, and manly. The arrange- 
ment was mutual, and had in it all the sacredness 
of a family relationship. So, a great price has been 
paid to attach all penitent and believing souls to 
the great family of redeemed ones on earth and in 
heaven. Christ himself has volunteered the price, 
the sublimest gratuity which the universe ever, be- 
held. Bought with this price, believers voluntarily 
enter into relationship with the great family of the 
holy, and with Jesus, the eternal head thereof. This 
is a relationship and an attachment vastly higher 
and more sacred than any thing merely earthly. It 
really absorbs all other relationships. It is mutual 
and close — infinitely removed from all idea of slav- 
ery. Christ has paid the price: on this basis the 



192* BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED, 

penitent soul unites himself, by faith, to Christ and 
his great family, to be under his control, and to 
render to him a service, voluntary, supreme, affection- 
ate, and hearty. When thus introduced into this 
higher and diviner family relationship, he ceases, in 
a very important sense, to be the servant of men. 
" Be not ye the servants of men." 

Sec. %—Epli. vi: 5-8. 

" Servants, be obedient to them that are your 
masters according to the flesh, with fear and trem- 
bling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ: 
Not with eye-service, as men-pleasers ; but as the 
servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the 
heart ; AVith good will doing service, as to the Lord, 
and not to men : Knowing that whatsoever good 
thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of 
the Lord, whether he be bond or free." 

It will be noticed that the word "your,'" in this 
first verse, is printed in italics in our translation, 
indicating that the word is not found in the original 
Greek. If we leave the word "your" out entirely, 
and read the verse as it stands in the Greek, we shall 
get nearer the true sense. " Servants, be obedient 
to the masters according to the flesh." The word 
ou'jXo^, doulos, "servant," (or rather, uou?.oi, douloi, 
"■ servants,") is used in these verses in its naked, 
unmodified form : and being thus unmodified, it has 
its general sense. It means " servants." To give it 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 193 

the limited, specific sense of slaves, is a violation of 
all grammatical and rhetorical rules. The word 
which is translated "masters," is precisely the same 
in the original Greek as in the passage which we 
have already examined in the Epistle to the Colos- 
sians, and has the same sense here as there. Both 
terms are unmodified, and are, therefore, used in a 
general sense. Consequently, there is not, in this 
passage, the remotest allusion to slaves and slave- 
owners, any more than there is to pirates and pirate- 
victims, or to Koman inquisitors and their victims. 
The passage pertains to serva7its and masters, and 
not to any of these other things. 

In regard to the particular directions contained in 
this passage, and its general scope, we offer the fol- 
lowing remarks : 

1. It is very manifest that the relation of servant 
and master is assumed and acknowledged in this 
passage as a right and proper relation. Now, the 
relation of slave and oicner is intrinsically wroni»-, 
improper, and unlawful. It is unrighteous trespass 
upon inalienable manhood rights. To assume or 
acknowledge that this relation is right and proper, 
is gross falsehood. It never is and never can be 
right and proper. It is universally and always un- 
lawful trespass. Of necessity, therefore, the relation 
assumed and referred to in this passage under the 
terms "servants and masters," can not be the rela- 
tion of slaves and oioners. It must be something 
else. To admit that the relation assumed in this 
passage is that of slaves and owners, would con- 
17 



194 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

vict the Apostle of gross blindness and gross false- 
hood. By no possibility, therefore, can this passage 
refer to slaves and owners. 

2. The directions in this passage of Scripture are 
necessary, common-sense directions, addressed to all 
servants. It is right and proper for all servants in 
the full possession of all their manhood rights, to be 
obedient to masters according to the flesh. Indeed, 
it is impossible to be servants without rendering 
such obedience. Obedience, subjection — is neces- 
sarily included in the relation. As long as servants 
sustain the relation of servants, they are bound to 
obey their masters or employers. It belongs to the 

"master to direct, and to them to obey. This is com- 
mon sense, and needs everywhere to be understood 
and remembered. It is exactly the right sort of 
advice to be given to servants — good for the servant, 
good for the master. 

3. This, however, must be a general direction, and, 
of course, subject to some limitations. Obedience 
must be limited by the nature of the requisitions of 
the master. If these requisitions are unrighteous 
and wicked, so that obedience involves moral wrong, 
this command does not api)ly. Servants are not to 
disobey God, in order to obey masters. They are 
under no obligation to obey unrighteous commands, 
obedience to which would be criminal. If the mas- 
ter commands murder, or licentious pollution, or any 
other intrinsic wrong, his command imposes no obli- 
gation ui^on the servant. If Aquila had commanded 
Paul, when he served Aquila at his house in Corinth, 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 195 

in the tent-making business, to take his youngest 
child and cast it into the Saronic Gulf to perish in 
its waters, such command would have imposed no 
obligation upon the serving Paul to obey it. Paul, 
no doubt, whenever he found it necessary to '' work 
out," as he did under the direction of Aquila and 
Priscilla, was a good and obedient servant, but he 
loved the higher law. 

Neither does the command in this passage apply 
to enforced, unrighteous, and degrading servitude, 
such as slave servitude. It may be expedient to 
render some sort of obedience, to some extent, in 
such cases, but such obedience is not due to any 
claim which the oppressing master possesses in the 
case. It is not due to any obligation which this 
command imposes, for it does not apply in the case. 
It may have been highly expedient, that is, due to 
himself and due to the universe, for Dr. Livingstone 
to lie very quiet and obedient under the yawning 
nose of the African lion, which, by a hearty shake 
of the great explorer, had effectually taught him on 
which side the power lay; but he was under no 
obligation to his African majesty to render such 
obedience, though he was, for the time being, his 
master. The captives of a Bedouin marauding party 
may find it very expedient to obey their murderous 
masters, but this command which we are considering 
imposes no obligation to such obedience. And why ? 
Simply because the servitude is an enforced, un- 
righteous, and oppressive servitude. It may be very 
expedient for the chattelized and degraded felave to 



196 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

obey his owner, who, as oppressor, is his master for 
the time being; but this command does not apply to 
his case. And the reason is, that the kind of servi- 
tude is an enforced, unrighteous, and oppressive one. 
This command assumes and recognizes the relation 
of master and servant, placing both on an equal foot- 
ing as to individual manhood and its rights, making 
obedience the duty of the servant, and direction and 
control the duty of the master. To this relation 
the command applies. As to the relation of slave 
and owner, it says nothing : but in the nature of 
the case, to this relation it does not and can not 
apply. 

4. This command of obedience on the part of 
servants, as well as all that pertains to the relation 
of servant and master, is expressly limited by the 
Apostle, by the groat higher obligation to Christ, as 
the Supreme Lord and King. Servants are to be, 
first of all and supremely, servants of Christ : and all 
their service to men is to be subservient to this their 
higher service to Christ. This is the principal thing 
in these instructions to servants in this passage un- 
der consideration. Now, this great and fundamental 
limitation is perfectly consistent and harmonious with 
the righteous relation of master and servant ; but 
totally inconsistent with the relation of owner and 
slave. " Not with eye-service as mcn-pleasers ; but 
as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from 
the heart; AVith good-will doing service, as to the 
Lord, and not to men," Obedience on the principle 
of the great law of benevolence or good-will, and 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 197 

•wholly subservient to that ; and the whole responsi- 
bility of rendering such higher-law obedience thrown 
wholly upon the servant. And then, in the ninth 
verse, the masters are commanded to act on the same 
principle toward their servants, and, in conclusion, 
they are told that with God " there is no respect of 
persons," plainly implying that there should not bo 
with men. So both master and servant are put upon a 
level ; the servant to obey directions, in subserviency 
to the law of obedience to Christ, and the master to 
exercise control, in subserviency to the same law. 
All this is perfectly consistent with the relation of 
servant and master, but totally inconsistent with the 
relation of slave and owner. Slavery universally 
practically abrogates the higher law for all its slaves. 
Preaching, in the true spirit of this passage of Scrip- 
ture would not, for a moment, be tolerated on any 
Southern plantation. It takes the servant and ex- 
alts him to his true position and dignity as a man, a 
creature, and child of God, whose conscience, whose 
moral agency, whose true freedom and personal re- 
sponsibility are to be under no authority, no control, 
no direction below that of the Lord Jehovah, whose 
he is, and for whose glory he was made. This is good 
and wholesome preaching for servants and masters, 
but perfectly suicidal and fatal for slaves and own- 
ers. The two can not possibly be put together. 
They never are put together. The only possible 
way in which this command can be made to apply 
to slaves and their owners is, by abolishing the 
slavery and exalting the slave to the condition of 



198 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMIlvTED. 

an uncliattelized servant, and subtracting from the 
owner his robber-ownership and making him simply 
a master. This would be changing the relation of 
slave and owner to that of servant and master : and 
then the command would apply. But this command 
has not the least possible or conceivable application 
whatever to slaves or slaveholders as such. That is 
not the relation which it contemplates. Of that 
relation it says nothing. 

Sec. Z.—Col iii: 22-25 ;*iv: 1. 

This passage is very similar to the one in Ephes- 
ians which we have just examined. We will quote 
it, however, entire, with the first verse of the next 
chapter, which manifestly belongs to it. "Servants, 
obey in all things your masters according to the 
flesh ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers ; but in 
singleness of heart, fearing God : And whatsoever 
ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto 
men; Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive 
the reward of the inheritance : for ye serve the Lord 
Christ. But he that doeth wrong, shall receive for 
the wrong which he hath done : and there is no re- 
spect of persons." Col. iv: 1 — "Masters, give unto 
your servants that which is just and equal; Know- 
ing that yo also have a Master in heaven." 

Here, the word "servants," oou/m, doidoi, is used 
in its simple, unqualified form, and hence in its gen- 
eral sense. This is New Testament usage. Hence, 
this passage can not relate specifically to slaves and 



/ 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 199 

tlieir owners. It relates to servants and masters. 
The " your " in the first verse is a superfluity of the 
translators. " Servants, obey in all things the mas- 
ters according to the flesh," 

As already intimated, this passage is very similar 
to the passage already examined in Ephesians. The 
writer is the same, and the scope of the passage and 
the directions in it are much the same. The per- 
sons spoken of are "servants" and " viasters :" the 
relation is that of servitude — that of servant and 
master. This does not include the relation of slave 
and owner, and has nothing to do with it. The 
passage is subject to the same limitations as that in 
Ephesians by the same writer. Like that, it is ex- 
pressly guarded by the all-pervading presence of the 
higher law. Servants are to be under that law in 
all their service to masters. Masters are to be 
under the same law, and to give to the servants 
"that which is just and equal." All this is in per- 
fect harmony with the righteous relation of servant 
and master: but perfectly impossible when applied 
to a state of slavery. The moment it is thus ap- 
plied, it either totally abolishes the slavery, and 
transmutes it into righteous servitude, or creates a 
deadly and fatal antagonism. 

In regard to these three passages of Apostolic 
writing, found in these three epistles to churches, 
we especially beg of the reader to notice this one 
thing. While the propriety of obedience on the 
part of the servants is admitted, and the duty of 
obedience is enjoined, the main drift of each of these 



200 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

passages aims distinctly to exalt the servant, and 
make a God's man of him, precisely on a level, as 
to his manhood and its rights, with the master. If 
the reader will carefully examine each of these pas- 
sages, he will see, at once, that this statement is 
literally true. It is not the object of these passa- 
ges at all to thrust the servant down into a dog's 
place, and degrade the man out of him, but to take 
him away from all this, and put him on a level 
with the master, an equal creature and child of 
God. The obedience is not dwelt upon — but the 
exaltation of that obedience. The obedience is admit- 
ted as right and proper, but in all these passages 
the greatest care is taken that it shall not degrade 
the servant; that it shall not trespass upon one 
single right of his as God's man, God's creature, 
God's free, moral agent, God's child. Not one of 
these passages can be applied to chattel slavery 
without instantly consumhig it. 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 201 



CHAPTER XIX. 

1 TIM, VI : 1, 2; TITUS, ii : 9, 10. 

The directions to obedience of servants to mas- 
ters, in the three passages which we have examined 
from the church Epistles of Paul, are couched in 
the simplest and most general form. " Let the 
servants be obedient to the masters." Or, perhaps 
more accurately, " Let the servants pay good atten- 
tion to what the masters direct." Li the personal 
Epistles of Paul we meet with two other passages 
which contain directions to servants, in which the 
language used is somewhat different, and somewhat 
more particular. These passages are found, one in 
the First Epistle to Timothy, and the other in the 
Epistle to Titus. It will be convenient to quote 
and examine these two passages together. 

1 Tim. vi : 1, 2 — " Let as many servants as are 
under the yoke count their own masters worthy of 
all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine 
be not blasphemed. And they that have believing 
masters, let them not despise them, because they 
are brethren ; but rather do them service, because 
they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the 
benefit." Titus, ii : 9, 10 — '^ Exhort servants to be 
obedient unto their own masters, and to please them 



202 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

well in all things; not answering again; not pur- 
loining, but showing all good fidelity; that they 
may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all 
things." 

In both of these passages servants are spoken of 
with special reference to ''their own masters." In 
both of these passages, also, the word which is trans- 
lated "masters" is different, in the original Greek, 
from that which Paul uses in the other epistles to 
designate masters. It is a word of frequent occur- 
rence in classic Greek, but does not often occur in 
the New Testament ; not more than ten times. Paul 
uses it only once (2 Tim. ii; 22) except in these 
two passages before us : and in that one instance it 
manifestly refers to Christ. Peter uses it once, in 
speaking of servants and masters. In all the other 
places where it is used in the New Testament, it 
refers to God or Christ. The proper meaning of 
this word, dza-ozrjc:, despotees, is, " the head of a 
family, pater familias."'^ The head of a family is, 
in an important sense, the " master " of the house- 
hold. He is the man to whom servants should be 
subject. There is not, therefore, in the word "mas- 
ters," which is used in these passages, the remotest 
allusion to slavery or slave-owners. We have, how- 
ever, in the peculiar phraseology of these passages, 
a distinct allusion to the Jewish idea of servitude, 
and of the household. The servants are spoken of 
as being attached to particular households, and as 

<< Dr. Uobiuson. 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 203 

having the head of the family for their master. 
Such allusion would have been less appropriate in 
epistles addressed to Gentile churches, but it is very- 
significant when found in epistles directed to Christ- 
ian bishops familiar with the Jewish Scriptures. 

Connected with the word dooXoc, douloi, "serv- 
ants," in the first verse of the passage in the Epistle 
to Timothy, we have the qualifying phrase, "under 
the yoke." " Servants under the yoke." Does this 
phrase mean slaves ? Is this the idiomatic form of 
expression which the sacred writers use to designate 
slaves? If it is, then we have, at last, found the 
specific and peculiar form of speech which, in the 
New Testament, denotes a slave, and we shall know 
exactly where to look for the slaves, and where to 
look for servants, and henceforward all will be plain. 
But it so happens that this form of speech is used 
in the New Testament only in this one solitary 
place. If this is Paul's peculiar and idiomatic form 
of speech for slave, the presumption is, that when 
he means slave, he uses this same form of speech. 
This presumption becomes a certainty when we 
have found, as is the case, that he uses no other 
form of speech for this purpose. This would set- 
tle it, that he means slave in no other place in his 
writings. 

But there is no evidence that this peculiar form 
of speech does mean slave, as used in Paul's writ- 
ings. He uses the word " yoke" in only one other 
place, namely, Gal. v: 1, in which passage he calls 
the obedience of the man who seeks to keep the law 



204 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

without faith in Christ " A yoke of bondage." This 
yoke of bondage was not chattel slavery. In Phil, 
iv: 3, he uses the same word coupled with the pre- 
position with, [p'jv, sitn,) " I entreat thee also, true 
yoke-fellow," etc. He here calls his brother Christ- 
ian a "yoke-fellow," alluding, perhaps, to that beau- 
tiful saying of our Savior, recorded in Matt, xi : 29, 
30 : " Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me ; 

For my yoke is easy and my burden 

is light:" in which words Christ recommends his 
"yoke" for the relief of those who "labor and are 
heavy laden." But this evidently is not the yoke 
of chattel slavery, and has no allusion to it. Peter 
makes use of this same word in his speech in the 
council at Jerusalem on the subject of circumcision, 
Acts XV : 10. This word also occurs in Pev. vi : 5 : 
" And I beheld, and lo, a black horse ; and he that 
sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand." 
In Matt, xix : 6, and Mark x : 9, a verb is used 
derived from the same root, which refers to the 
joining together of husband and wife. In Luke ii : 
24, " A pair of turtle doves," and xiv : 19, ''I have 
bought live yoke of oxen," we have another form of 
the same word, in which the primary meaning of 
the word appears. These examples embrace the 
whole of the New Testament usage. We have, then, 
the yoke of the Mosaic law, the yoke of Christ, the 
yoke of marriage, five 5'oke of oxen, one yoke of 
turtle doves, the yoke that was in the man's hand 
that rode upon the black horse, and the yoke of servi- 
tude referred to by Paul in this passage to Timothy. 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 205 

From all this usage it is manifest that this word 
"yoke" has no particular and special reference to 
chattel slavery. So wide is its figurative use that 
it is properly applied to the service of Christ, .which 
Paul takes a great deal of pains to show is the high- 
est kind of freedom, and not bondage. From this 
usage it is manifest that any sort of allegiance might 
be called a yoke. The yoke of common servitude 
might be more or less severe, according to circum- 
stances. In some households, where the engagement 
was for life, or for a long period, it might be very 
severe. 

In our judgment, Paul uses the word doi)?.o^, dou- 
los, " servant," in this passage in its general sense, 
as he does in other places, adding the phrase "under 
the yoke," to indicate simply the state of allegiance 
or servitude in which the servants were held: that 
he acknowledges the propriety and lawfulness of 
the relation of master and servant just as he does 
elsewhere, and with the same limitations : and that 
both of these passages do not differ in scope and 
spirit from the passages already examined in his 
other epistles. Like them, they are addressed to 
servants independent of their masters: like them, 
they contemplate servants as true men having all 
the rights of proper manhood: like them, they enjoin 
subjection and obedience to the master : like them, 
they put the servant under the authority of the 
higher law of obedience to God : and like them, they 
refer to the relation of servant and master, but con- 
tain no allusion to the relation of slave and owner. 



206 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 



CHAPTER XX. 

INFERENCES AND REMARKS SUGGESTED BY FORE- 
GOING EXPOSITIONS. 

In regard to these several jDassages of Scripture 
"wliicli we have been examinina: from the writino-s 
ol Paul, we wish to remark here, that there are 
two or three considerations in reference to them, 
taken as a whole, and as containing the instructions 
of the New Testament addressed particularly to 
servants, to which special attention is invited. 

1. All these passages manifestly refer to the same 
subject, and contain substantially the same instruc- 
tions and directions. These passages all plainly 
relate to one and the same thing : and the directions 
in them are precisely similar. 

2. Now, if Paul meant slaves in these passages, 
it is very singular that he did not say slaves. He 
was not afraid to say " men-stealers" when he meant 
that. He uses the word dooXo^, doidos, in connec- 
tions and relations where the sense can not possibly 
be slave. His general usage of the word is clearly 
in the sense of servant, and not in the sense of slave. 
In the first line even in his Epistle to the Romans, 
his first Epistle in order in the New Testament, 
he uses it in this sense : " Paul, a servant of Jesus 
Christ." Now, it is very singular that he should 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 207 

use this same word, without qualification, in the 
diiferent and specific sense of slave, lohcnever he gives 
directions to servants, arid nowhere else. This is 
very strange indeed. But if these passages refer 
specifically to slaves, this is precisely what he has 
done. This would convict him of the most wonder- 
ful literary freak that ever was perpetrated, at least 
by an inspired writer. For it was just as easy for 
him to say slaves in language that meant slaves, as 
it was for him to say slaves in language that meant 
scrvayits. 

3. If Paul, in all these passages, does use the word 
douAo^, doidos, in the limited, specific sense of slave, 
as most of the commentators interpret and expound, 
and if Peter, also, in his one single direction to serv- 
ants, means slaves, as many understand, then we 
have not one solitary direction or exhortation to 
any other class or classes of servants, as such, in the 
entire New Testament. Paul, the great Apostle 
and chief writer of the New Testament, gives re- 
peated directions to slaves, but not one direction 
whatever to servants of any sort: for a slave is not 
necessarily a servant, any more than a horse-jockey's 
horses are all actually employed in service. Paul, 
guided by the unerring wisdom of inspiration, 
singles out slaves, and commands and exhorts them, 
but has not one word of instruction, command, or 
exhortation, in all his writings, for any or all of 
the multiplied and various classes of unchattelized 
servants to be found in all the world, or in any age. 
This is very singular indeed. It is strange, indeed, 



208 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

that the pen of inspiration, writing for the instruc- 
tion of the world in all coming time, should be very 
particular to tell slaves to obey their owners — a 
direction against which, in its unqualified sense, 
human reason utterly rebels, as much as it would 
against the command to pirate captives to obey their 
pirate masters — but should entirely overlook all 
other servants and classes of servants. Husbands 
and wives; parents and children; rulers and sub- 
jects; brethren and brethren; teachers and taught; 
elder and younger ; and, at last, but quite prominent! 
according to this interpretation, slaves and owners, 
are all commanded and exhorted ; but servants and 
masters of all sorts and classes are skipped over in 
profound silence. Those that can believe this, must 
find reasons for their belief as best th6y can. We 
believe no such thing. We believe most fully that 
masters and servants, and not slaves and owners, are 
the subjects of discourse and of command in all these 
passages which we have been examining. 

4. The absurdity of making 5oD;>oc, doulos, mean 
slave, may be illustrated. The word "bread" is fre- 
quently used in the Bible. Like do'jXo-, doulos, it 
is a general term, and is so used as to imply sanc- 
tion of the use of bread as an article of food. But 
" bread may either be made of the flour of wheat, 
of rye, of barley, of corn, of oats; or it may be 
made of the starch of the potato, or of various other 
fiirinaccous vegetables; it may be made even of 
bran, even of spurred rye, than which few poisons 
are more destructive to health, or fatal to the life 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 209 

of man. Lloreover, the same may be fermented or 
unfermented — debased by the mixture of inniitri- 
tious ingredients, and even of the most deadly 
poisons ; but hmvever made, or of ivhatever made, it 
is still called bread. But because it is so called, are 
we to believe, when bread is spoken of in terms " 
which imply commendation and sanction of its use, 
" that among all the kinds of bread which exist, the 
very vilest of them is had in contemplation " and 
especially and specifically meant ? " Or because the 
use of bread," as the word is employed in the Bible, 
is impliedly or expressly " sanctioned in the Bible, 
sanctioned habitually, sanctioned even at the com- 
munion-table, are we to believe that " '' that sort of 
bread which is known to be destructive of health 
and even of life"* is the particular kind of bread 
which is specifically and expressly meant and sanc- 
tioned? Such conclusion would be preposterous, 
absurd, and ridiculous. But this case is precisely 
analagous to the use of oo^jIo^, doulos, servant, in 
the New Testament. ^' Bread'' is a general term: 
Sou/.OQ, doulos, servayit, is a general term : it is no 
more absurd to single out the vilest and most poi- 
sonous kind of bread, and affirm that that was the 
bread which was used and sanctioned at the com- 
munion-table when Christ himself presided in per- 
son, than it is to single out the vilest and most 
villainous kind of servitude that Heaven's rolling 
sun ever shone upon, as Conybeare and Howson, 
and a multitude of other commentators of less learn- 

■;'Pres. Kott, D. D. 

18 



210 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED, 

ing and note have actually done, and affirm that 
that was the particular kind of servitude meant in 
all the passages where Paul speaks of the duties of 
servants and masters. Such a procedure is totally 
unwarranted, preposterous, and absurd. 

5. This view w^ich we have taken of the sense 
and usage of dooXo;;, doulos, servant, in the Pauline 
writings, is confirmed by direct, incidental testimony 
from his own pen. Very fortunately he has given 
us, quite clearly, in his Epistle to the Galatians, his 
idea of a servant. It corresponds exactly with the 
Abrahamic and Jewish idea of a servant. In Gal 
iv : 1, it is written : " Now I say. That the heir, as 
long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a serv- 
ant, though he be lord of all." No man in his 
senses would ever make such a comparison as this, 
if servant meant slave. No slaveholder ever thought 

O 

of making such a statement as this, as to the equality 
of his slaves with his children. The subjection of 
the child and heir in the household never is like 
that of the slave. It "differeth" from it totally. 
But it is very like that of the free, unchattelized 
servant in the Hebrew household, patterned after 
the old Abrahamic type, with its "justice and judg- 
ment." This was Paul's idea of servant. This is 
the idea that we are to attach to the word servant 
when it occurs in his writings. 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 211 



CHxiPTER XXI. 

EXPOSITION OF 1 PETER, II : 18. 

There is one other passage, wliich is found in the 
First Epistle of Peter, which speaks of the duties 
of servants. This is sometimes quoted as belonging 
to the same class with the passages which we have 
examined in the writings of Paul. On account of 
its dilferent phraseology in the original Greek, some 
writers have given it a different signifi^^ation and 
application. Some quote it as referring to slavery, 
others reject it as having nothing to do with slavery. 

We will endeavor to present, in few words, what 
we understand to be its true meaning and bearing 
upon the subject before us. 

The passage is as follows: '"'Servants, be subject to 
your masters with all fear ; not only to the good and 
gentle, but also to the froward." 

1. In regard to this passage, it may be remarked, 
in the first place, that the form of the passage is 
general. The pronoun "your" is not in the original 
text. The sense may be expressed in this way: 
" Let the servants be subject to the masters." 

2. In the second place, it is to be noticed, that 
this direction is found in immediate connection with 
other general directions touching the relations of 
life. Before it we have, in the thirteenth verse and 



212 BIBLE SERVITUDE BE-EXAMINED. 

onward, directions in regard to the duty of obeying 
civil magistrates. Following it, in the next chapter, 
wives and husbands are addressed. The passage 
which we are examining is the only passage in this 
epistle which refers to the duties of servants. It is 
natural, therefore, to suppose that Peter, in this 
passage, is speaking of servants in the general sense : 
and it is very unnatural to suppose that, while the 
whole epistle is remarkable for its universality, he 
has, in this passage, singled out a particular kind of 
servants, and laid injunctions upon them, and left 
all other servants entirely out of the account. He 
speaks of civil rulers and subjects, and gives gen- 
eral directions — directions applicable to all rulers 
and subjects. He speaks of wives and husbands, 
and gives directions in the same way. It would 
seem almost morally certain that, in speaking of 
servants and masters, he would use these terms in 
the same general sense. We certainly think he has 
done this. 

3. But the terms used by Peter, in this passage, 
are different from those used by Paul in speaking 
of servants and masters, and are such as can not, 
with any propriety, be referred to slaves and 
owners. The word, in the original Greek, which is 
translated "servants" is not dooXoc, doidoi, which is 
the word Paul uses, but another word, (ocxizai, oike- 
tai,) whose proper meaning is one living in the same 
house, or house-companion.^ The word for "masters" 
is the same as in Titus, ii : 9, and, as there, denotes 

'^' Dr. Robinson. 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 213 

the head of afamib/, pafcr familias* This corres- 
ponds exactly with the Hebrew idea of servant and 
master : servant, an attache of the household ; mas- 
ter, the family head, or chief. Peter, being thor- 
oughly a Jew, and having less acquaintance with 
Gentiles and Gentile literature than Paul, would be 
very likely to use the word ocxizT^c, oiketees, house- 
companion, instead of douXoz, doulos, to mean 
servant. This is the true Abrahamic-Hebrew idea 
of servant. This was Peter's idea of servant, and 
hence he has selected words and language in the 
Greek that very nicely and beautifully express, not 
the Roman or Grecian idea of servant, but the pure, 
native Jewish idea with which he was familiar, and 
to which he had always been accustomed. Failing 
to notice or recognize this important fact, many 
writers have been much puzzled to understand 
exactly what Peter meant in this passage. It is 
very harsh and arbitrary, indeed, nay, utterly inad- 
missible, to apply this language to chattel slavery. 
It is, also, very tame and narrow to refer this only 
passage in Peter's epistle which speaks of the 
duties of servants, to domestic, kitchen servants, as 
some commentators have. Neither of these inter- 
pretations is at all satisfactory. In our judgment, 
Peter uses the language he employs in this passage 
in an enlarged, general sense. The words are Greek, 
the sense Hebrew. House-companion, or, rather, 
household-companion, is much the true Hebrew 
idea of servant. Peter, being altogether a Jew, and 

'^ Dr. Robinson. 



214 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

having had altogether a Hebrew education, would 
be very sure to select this identical language to 
designate servants in the general sense ; while Paul, 
having more acquaintance with foreign customs and 
literature, and writing to and for foreigners, would 
be more likely to select uooXo^, doidos, a term in 
the Greek more general, and one that would un- 
equivocally cover the whole ground of servitude. 
The English translators, therefore, were entirely 
correct in retaining the word " servant," and in 
giving the passage a general signification, as they 
have, in our English Bible. The passage unques- 
tionably refers to servitude in the general, right- 
eous, Hebrew sense, and has not the remotest 
reference to chattel slavery. It relates to servants 
and masters, and contains no allusion whatever to 
slaves and owners. 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 215 



CHAPTER XXII. 

EECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSIONS. 

1. In this examination of the New Testament, we 
have seen that if the writers thereof had conformed 
simply to the proprieties of classic usage, their use 
of ooCt/oc, doulos, which is the word they usually 
employ to denote servant, must have been as a gen- 
eral term. They would have used this word not in 
a specific, but in a general sense, corresponding with 
our English word servant. 

2. We have also seen, that if they had followed 
Hebrew ideas, usages, and customs, as native Jews, 
they would surely have used douXo^, doulos, in 
a general sense, and not in the specific sense of 
slave. 

3. We have further seen, from an extended and 
careful examination of various passages in which 
this word occurs, that their actual use of it is in the 
general sense — a sense corresponding with the sense 
of our word servant in English, and that it utterly 
forbids the specific sense of slave. 

4. By a similar examination, we have seen that 
the writers of the New Testament never modify this 
term so as to give it the specific sense of slave. Or 
at least that it is not so modified in any of the pas- 
sages that give directions to servants and masters. 



216 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

AVitliout sncli modification, such sense is entirely 
inadmissible. 

5. There were other better terms at hand in the 
Greek language to use for slave, which they might 
have used, and which they were not afraid to use, 
as is manifest from 1 Tim, i: 10, 

6. Furthermore, we have seen that the directions 
given in the passages where servants and masters are 
spoken of, are perfectly consonant with the general 
and righteous relation of master and servant, but 
utterly inconsistent with the different and narrower 
relation of slave and owner : that they elevate, sanc- 
tify, and make safe the former, while to the latter 
they are totally impracticable, or fatally destructive. 

7. Hence, the conclusion is inevitable and irre- 
sistible, that the writers of the New Testament use 
the word doi)?.o^, doidos, which is the only word 
used in the New Testament that is supposed to mean 
slave, universally in its general sense — a sense cor- 
responding with the signification of our English 
word servant, and never in the specific sense of 
slave. The foregoing considerations, established be- 
yond all contradiction, make this conclusion irre- 
fragable. Our English translation is faithful and 
correct in this matter. Wherever the word servant 
occurs, the true meaning is servant, and not slave. 
So of the word master : wherever it occurs it means 
master, and not slave-owner. 

Now, if Paul and the writers of the New Testa- 
ment used these terms which we have been examin- 
ing in a general sense, the relation which they had 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 217 

in mind in the use of these terms, must have been 
the rehation of servant and viaster, and not the re- 
lation of shive and owner, pirate and captive, or any- 
other such different and specific relation. This is 
self-evident. 

1. It is also manifest that, since they used these 
terms very frequently, and without modification, and 
in numerous leading instances where any other sense 
is inadmissible, they always referred, in the use of 
these terms, to the same relation. There is nothing 
in their use of these terms to indicate that they did 
not use them in a uniform sense in this respect : 
namely, as always pointing to one and the same 
relation. The relation, therefore, of servant and 
master, and not the relation of slave and owner, is 
always the relation which is contemplated whenever 
these terms occur in the New Testament. 

2. Hence, whenever directions are given to serv- 
ants and masters, the relation assumed and recog- 
nized is not and can not be the relation of slave and 
owner, but that of servant and master. In all these 
directions this is the relation contemplated. There 
is no avoiding this conclusion, from the facts and 
demonstrations presented. 

3. It is also this relation as a right relation. In 
all the passages in the New Testament which give 
directions to servants and masters, the relation im- 
plied in these terms is plainly assumed, and recog- 
nized, and treated, as a right and proper relation. 
It is in vain to deny this, as many anti-slavery men 
have done. The directions themselves manifestly 

19 



218 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

contemplate the continuance of the relation, and 
that it may be righteously sustained by both parties. 
But, since this relation is the righteous relation of 
servant and master, and not the unrighteous relation 
of slave and owner, its full recognition as righteous, 
by the inspired writers, is altogether proper. This 
recognition runs through the New Testament. The 
relation which is recognized in all those passages 
which give directions to servants and masters, is the 
relation of servant and master, and that as a right 
and proper relation, 

4. But it must be that relation with all needful 
limitations, as we have already seen. The relation 
of servant and master has its limitations. These 
limitations are always assumed whenever the rela- 
tion itself is referred to. The relation must be 
righteously sustained. All relations spoken of in 
the Bible have their limitations in the same way. 
The parental relation, for example, is a right one : it 
is everywhere assumed and recognized as such, in the 
Bible. It has its limitations, however. It must be 
righteously sustained. As the man huth not power 
in himself without the woman, it is right for the 
man to seek to become a father by the help of some 
one chosen woman. But the Bible would not sanc- 
tion his seeking to become a father with every 
woman whom he might chance to meet. The pro- 
priety of the parental relation in itself would, by no 
means, give him that latitude. It has its righteous 
limitations. So has the righteous relation of servi- 
tude — the relation of servant and master. The 



NEW TESTAMENT SERVITUDE. 219 

Bible recognizes its propriety, as it does all other 
right relations within the circle of these limitations : 
but never outside of them. This is assumed and 
implied in all the passages in the New Testament 
which give directions to servants and masters. 

5. Hence there is not, in any of these passages, 
the remotest sanction, tolerance, or sufferance given 
either to slaveholding, or to the system of slavery, 
or to the relation of slave and owner. The relation 
spoken of is another relation entirely. It does not 
include the relation of slave and owner, and can 
never be stretched to embrace it. It is a separate 
matter entirely: a somewhat not implied or con- 
templated in these passages, and with which they 
have nothing to do. If, in addition to the relation 
of master and servant, servants should be forced to 
sustain the relation of breeding harlots to their 
masters, this would be a matter entirely distinct 
from, and not at all implied in, the relation of master 
and servant, and not falling under the same rules. 
Such servants would be obliged to get along with 
this extraneous oppression and wrong as best they 
might : but these commands, addressed to them as 
servants, would have no application to them as har- 
lots. So of any other abuse. So of the relation of 
chattelhood. If the master should force the servant 
into the relation of slavery, in addition to that of 
servant, and make a chattel slave of him, this would 
be a new and extra relation not implied, or con- 
templated, or recognized at all in these directions to 
servants and masters. They refer to the relation 



220 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

of servant and master, and have nothing to do with 
the other relation of slave and owner. 

6. Hence again, since no such sanction, tolerance, 
or sufferance is elsewhere found in the New Testa- 
ment, there is absolutely not the least shadow of 
sanction, toleration, or sufferance given to slavery, 
or to slaveholding, or to the relation of slave and 
owner, anywhere in the New Testament. Nothing 
nearer to this is sanctioned in the New Testament 
than unchattelized servitude, always guarded by 
righteous limitations. Of chattel slavery, the New 
Testament knows nothing, except as it learns from 
the Old Testament, that it is capital crime. The 
relation of servant and master is as frequently 
alluded to in the New Testament writings as any 
other relation ; and it is uniformly so alluded to as 
to give it sanction as being right and proper. Ac- 
cording to their teachings, this relation is rightly 
sustained when servants obey the directions of their 
masters, and when masters give unto their servants 
that which is just and equal. This makes the New 
Testament consistent with itself, and consistent with 
the great and eternal principles of rectitude and 
right which are laid down in the Word of God, and 
recognized in the human intelligence. 

Does any one inquire, " What, then, are the par- 
ticular teachings of the New Testament on the sub- 
ject of slavery ? " The answer is easy and brief. 
The Old Testament, from the beginning, had recog- 
nized the relation of master and servant as a right 
relation. It had, in the Mosaic code, legislated oa 



NEW TESTAMENT vSERVITUDE. 221 

this subject so as to protect and do justice to both 
master and servant. The rehation of slave and 
owner it had set down, with terrible brevity, in the 
category of capital crimes. Ex. xxi : 16 — " And he 
that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be 
found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." 
This, under the very shadow of Mount Sinai, while 
the earth still quaked greatly beneath the footsteps of 
the Almighty Jehovah. Deut. xxiv : 7 — " If a man 
be found stealing any of his brethren of the children 
of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth 
him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put 
evil away from among you." As capital "evil" 
it always treated it. This was sufficient. The New 
Testament finds the matter right there, and leaves 
it right there. The chattclizing of human beings is 
one of those gross crimes condemned by every pre- 
cept and principle of God's law, and by every senti- 
ment of right in the human reason, in regard to 
which nothing further, particular, and special needed 
to be said. 

According to Paul, in his First Epistle to Timothy, 
i: 10, the Old Testament law on this subject was 
made for those who perpetrated the crime in all 
ages of the world. This was enough. Many forms 
of gross crime are passed over in silence by the 
writers of the New Testament, so far as. any special 
or particular designation is concerned. Piracy, both 
as a system and as particular wickedness, is not so 
much as once named by them. Paul certainly could 
not have been ignorant of its wide-spread existence 



222 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

in those times. No special directions are given to 
those who should become the victims of piratical 
plunder or capture : and no special directions are 
given in regard to the duties growing out of the 
existence of piracy, or the relation of piracy. Piracy 
is as much a system as slavery is.- But the very 
silence of the New Testament in regard to such 
gross enormities, especially after the Old Testament 
has spoken, and the voice of Jehovah from Mount 
Sinai stands recorded there, is more terribly expres- 
sive than any additional utterances could be. This 
silence proclaims to all the world that all God has 
to say of chattel slavery is, that it is a capital 
crime ! The very brevity of this legislation gives 
it a fearful significance. With this brief, direct, 
unequivocal legislation, the Old Testament disposes 
of this matter : the New Testament, fully endorsing 
this legislation, in 1 Tim. i : 10, has nothing more 
to add. Without multiplying words, both Testa- 
ments promptly shake their garments of all com- 
plicity with, and sanction of, chattel slavery. Both 
alike treat and condemn it as capital crime. 



THE TWO RELATIONS ' 223 



CHAPTER XXIII. 

SPECIAL CHAPTER ON THE TWO RELATIONS (1) OF 
SERVANT AND MASTER, AND (2) OF SLAVE AND 
OWNER. 

A LATE writer on the subject of slavery remarks, 
that "The Mosaic statutes respecting the relation of 
master and slave are obviously modifications and 
amendments of a previously existing common law, 
and are designed to ameliorate the condition of the 
slave, to protect him from oppression, and to pro- 
mote the gradual disuse and abolition of slavery." * 
Other writers have seen very clearly that both the 
Patriarchal history and the Mosaic code speak and 
treat of servants and masters, and hence of servi- 
tude, as an existing state of things. This has been 
already noticed in examining particular passages 
of Scripture in the Mosaic writings. The Patri- 
archal history refers to, and speaks of, servitude, 
servants and masters, as familiar matters, well 
understood, and belonging to the settled arrange- 
ments of society. The Mosaic code proceeds to 
legislate about servitude, servants and masters as 
Bomething already existing, and with which the 

* h. Bacon : Slavery, p. 29. 



224 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

people for whom that code was given were familiar. 
Of this there can he no doubt. The great mistake, 
however, of the quotation above, and with most 
writers on the subject of Bible servitude, lies in 
making the relation involved in these references to 
servitude, servants and masters, the relation of slave 
and oivner, instead of the relation of servant and 
master. It has been already fully shown, we trust, 
in the progress of this work, that the relation im- 
plied in the allusions to servitude, servants and 
masters, in the Patriarchal history; the relation 
contemplated in the Mosaic legislation concerning 
servitude, servants and masters; and the relation 
recognized in the instructions given to servants and 
masters, in the New Testament, are one and the 
same relation ; and that that relation is the relation 
of servant and master, and not the other relation 
of slave and owner. But we wish here to condense 
and sum up the argument, and present it in short 
space before the eye of the reader. 

1. It is abundantly proved and admitted, that 
the words themselves that are translated servant 
and master, and the terms bought and sold, as used 
in the Mosaic writings, determine nothing as to the 
condition into which those were introduced who 
were thus bought and sold, and spoken of as serv- 
ants. A candid and thorough examination demon- 
strates this, as Dr. Barnes, Dr. Checver, and other 
learned men have fully shown. In Old Testament 
usage, these terms wore entirely appropriate to free 



THE TWO EELATIONS, 225 

men, freely applied to persons wlio could not have 
been chattel slaves. The words and terms used, 
therefore, decide nothing as to the relation of the 
persons to whom they are applied. These terms 
are just as applicable to free servants as to slave 
servants. 

2. In the Patriarchal history, and in the Mosaic 
code, the master is never called owner, and the 
servant is never described as property beyond his 
services. This can be accounted for only on the 
supposition that the relation contemplated was the 
relation of master and servant, and not the relation 
of slave and owner. If this latter had been the 
relation contemplated, it would certainly have been 
specifically designated. 

3. The condition into which servants were intro- 
duced, and the manner in which they were held 
and treated, have all the marks and characteristics 
which belong to a condition of free, unchattelized 
servitude, and none of the characteristics which 
belong to the peculiar condition "-of chattel slaves. 
This fact, which is incontrovertible, really settles 
the whole question. For the real question is not 
how servants in the Patriarchal households, and 
under the Mosaic code, came to be servants there; 
but how they were held when there: as free serv- 
ants, or as slave servants? Now, it is incontes- 
tible that Abraham's treatment of his servants was 
ntterly inconsistent with a state of slavery, and 
consistent only with a state of freedom : and that 



226 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

the regulations of tlie Mosaic code are totally incon- 
sistent with a state of slavery, and consistent only 
with a state of freedom. The relation implied, 
therefore, in both cases, must have been the relation 
of servant and master, and not the relation of slave 
and owner. 

4. The concomitants of slavery are totally want- 
ing in the subsequent history of the Jews. Chattel 
slavery always trails along with itself a horrible 
gang of barbarous accompaniments. It never exists 
without these. These never appear in Jewish his- 
tory. Servants are never called slaves. In every 
other nation under heaven, where servants are made 
slaves, they are sure to get the title : they are called 
slaves. The word servant never came to have a 
degraded sense : the degraded sense w^hich goes 
along with the word slave, and which it inevitably 
would have had, if servants had been slaves. There 
is no selling of servants. There is no hunting of 
fugitive slaves. A civil police, to keep slaves in 
subjection, never appears. Slave auctions never 
appear. A slave traffic never appears. Slave whip- 
pings never appear. Slave rebellions never appear. 
The degraded slave class in society never appears. 
In short, not one characteristic concomitant of chat- 
teX slavery ever appears in all the history of the 
Jewish nation. The relation did not exist among 
them, and hence its concomitants are not to be 
found. 

5. So, if we go back and trace the history of the 



THE TWO RELATIONS. 227 

Bervitudo which descended in the HebreAV line from 
the Patriarchs who lived soon after the flood, we 
shall see that it must have been the free servitude 
of servant and master, and not the servitude of slave 
and owner. It came down from a period when chat- 
tel slavery was utterly impossible. It has been de- 
monstrated that in the Patriarchal households it w^as 
free servitude. It is equally manifest that this same 
free servitude was the servitude which Moses found 
among the Jews, and to which he adapted his legis- 
lation. Precisely the same language is used in the 
Patriarchal history, and in the Mosaic code, in de- 
scribing the servitude referred to. It is everywhere 
referred to as one and the same thing. In its origin 
it must have been the servitude whose relation is 
that of servant and master, and not the relation of 
slave and owner. In its descent along the line of 
Jewish history, there is no evidence that it ever 
became any thing else. This is the relation that 
is everywhere implied and contemplated in the 
legislation of the Mosaic code on the subject of 
servitude. 

6. Hence, throughout the Old Testament, all tres- 
pass upon manhood rights, against servants, or any 
one else, all oppression, in every form, is denounced, 
and against it the most terrible judgments are threat- 
ened. The relation of servant and master is every- 
where recognized and acknowledged as right and 
proper; but all injustice, all trespass upon the inal- 
ienable rights of man, all oppression, is rebuked and 



228 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

denounced. This consists with the righteous rela- 
tion of servant and master, but is totally inconsistent 
with the relation of slave and owner. The relation 
of servant and master consists with the preservation 
of the full dignity of individual manhood and its 
inalienable rights, intact and inviolable. The rela- 
tion of slave and owner implies the subversion of 
that dignity, and the destruction of those rights. 
The relation of servant and master, therefore, is con- 
sistent with the denunciations of God's AVord against 
injustice and oppression : while the relation of slave 
and owner will not admit of such denunciations. 

7. The servitude, therefore, which is recognized 
and sanctioned in the Patriarchal history, and of 
which God testified that it was according to justice 
and righteous judgment, (Gen. xviii: 19,) and that 
servitude which Moses found among the Israelites, 
which he regulated, and to which he adapted his 
legislation — were one and the same thing : the servi- 
tude found in the righteous relation of servant and 
master, and not that which is found in the relation 
of slave and owner. To this latter relation Moses 
devotes two verses, locating it, by a changeless record 
and statute, among capital crimes". — (Ex. xxi : 16, 
and Deut. xxiv: 7.) 

8. In perfect harmony with all this, is the manner 
in which the New Testament treats the same subject. 
The righteous relation of servant and master appears 
on almost every page, and is everywhere recognized 
and sanctioned as right and })ro])cr. The other rela- 



THE TWO RELATIONS. 229 

tion of slave and owner is left where the Old Testa- 
ment leaves it: a capital crime. As such, Paul 
alludes to it once in 1 Tim., i : 10. It is said to be 
alluded to once in the Revelation. Whether it is 
elsewhere referred to in the New Testament, we do 
not know. This, then, is our conclusion : That the 
relation of unchattelized servitude runs through the 
Bible, and is everywhere recognized and sanctioned 
as a right and proper relation : that the relation 
of slave and owner is put in the catalogue of other 
gross crimes, and is dispatched in two or three 
verses and is there left. 



230 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 



CHAPTER XXIV. 

REASON WHY SO FEW DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO MAS- 
TERS AND SERVANTS — ON WHAT GROUND THESE 
DIRECTIONS ARE GOOD FOR SLAVES AND SLAVE- 
HOLDERS SLAVEHOLDERS AND THE PRIMITIVE 

CHURCHES. 

The reason why our Savior gives no specific di- 
rections to servants and masters, as such, and why so 
few such directions are to be found anywliere in the 
New Testament is, that the Bible everywhere exalts 
the individual man, and always contemplates each 
child of Adam, without respect of persons, as an 
individual, legitimate son and heir of rationality and 
immortality. It goes back of society distinctions 
and prejudices, and counts each soul a child and 
creature of God. It is no respecter of persons. It 
commands all people to call no man master; and it 
commands them to honor all men. What it says, is 
addressed to every child of Adam, as God's creature, 
for whom Christ died, and valued by him above all 
price, as a rational, immortal soul. 

And so the whole Bible is addressed to masters, 
and the whole of it to servants. There is not one 
Bible for masters, and another for servants. God's 
Bible thinks just as highly of servants as it does of 
masters, and placps them both entirely on a level. 



MISCELLANEOUS. 231 

And the great object in what few specific directions 
are given, is to remind both servants and masters of 
this fact. Both are put under the same law, and the 
directions are concluded with the pregnant declara- 
tion that God is no respecter of persons. 

And when the dust and cob-web gatherings of 
moth-eaten superstitions are fully wiped off from the 
Sacred page, the whole Bible is found to be one con- 
tinued thundering cannonade against all trespass 
upon manhood rights. No particular, specific direc- 
tions are really needed either for servants or mas- 
ters, except to remind them that the great law of 
benevolence applies to them, belongs to them, and is 
the rule of action for them both. And, it is remark- 
able that this is exactly the character of the few 
directions that are given to them. Both are, alike, 
as we have seen, put under this great higher law: 
masters to obey it, by giving to the servants that 
which is just and equal ; and servants to be under 
the direction of the masters, and render the service 
due cheerfully and uprightly. These facts charac- 
terize the directions in every case: the great object 
being to apply the great higher law of universal, 
impartial, unselfish good-will to the parties con- 
cerned. The relation of servant and master is right 
and proper : that relation is rightly sustained when 
sustained according to this higher law. 

In regard to the other relation of slave and owner : 
(1.) It is an unrighteous, abnormal relation — a 
"violence" to all law and fitness not to be tolerated 
for a single moment. (2.) And secondly, all the 



232 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED, 

directions given to masters and servants are in 
direct conflict with it : not adapted to that relation, 
nor designed for it. Tliey can Le applied to it only 
as you apply water to fire, to annihilate it. 

The way is now prepared for us to see clearly the 
ground on which the directions given to servants 
are good also for slaves. Most of these directions 
are goTid for slaves, considered as servants with the 
super-added oppressions and abuses of slavery im- 
posed upon them. While they continue in this con- 
dition, obedience is, undoubtedly, expedient and wise 
for them. But the slave is not under the least 
obligation to his master as owner. The ownership 
itself is contraband and wicked, and imposes not the 
least obligation upon the slave. AVhatever of obli- 
gation there may be in the case, rests solely on the 
ground of expediency, and not at all on the ground 
of any thing due the slaveholder. In the relation 
of servant and master, the servant is under obliga- 
tion to the master to render obedience on the ground 
of the relation he sustains to him as servant. In 
the relation of slave and owner, the slave is under 
no obligation whatever to render obedience to the 
owner on the ground of that relation. No slave 
under heaven owes the owner a single particle of 
duty, or service, or obedience, or respect, because 
he is a slave. This is a ground upon which obliga- 
tion never grows. It may be expedient for the slave 
to render peaceful obedience : that is, the slave may 
be under oliligation to li i nisdf io render obedience; 
he may be under obligation to the general good to 



MISCELLANEOUS. 233 

do SO. Just as a captive in a den of tigers might 
be under ol^ligation to himself and the general good 
to '•' play 'possum," or do any thing else not in 
itself wrong, that might appear expedient. But the 
tiger's paws and jaws would impose no obligation 
upon him to be submissive. And just as a victim 
of the Ptomish Inquisition might be under obligation 
to himself and the general good to be passive and 
obedient, and to exhibit a Christian spirit. But he 
would be under no obligation to his tormentors to 
render either service or obedience. Neither is due 
to them, and they have no claim upon either. So 
of the slave in regard to his owner. He owes nothing 
to him as owner. If he were a free, voluntary serv- 
ant, under pay, with acknowledged manhood, then 
he would owe obedience and service, on the ground 
of the relation which he sustained to his master. 
But this relation never covers the other relation of 
slave and owner : it never implies any portion of it, 
and never has any thing to do with it: it never 
carries any of its obligations over into it. 

We can see, also, how these directions which are 
given to masters are good also for slaveholders. If 
slaveholders are to be contemplated as slaveholding 
masters, and their slaves as servants, then these di- 
rections apply, and they demand of the master to 
give unto his servants that which is just and equal. 
This instantly abolishes, annihilates, and puts a final 
end to chattel slavery. The first "just and equal" 
thing which the slaveholding master is to do in re- 
gard to his slave servants is, to cease at once and 
20 



234 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

forever to regard, or treat, or hold them as chattel 
slaves. He can not even begin to obey these direc- 
tions without doing that. And that is immediate 
and complete emancipation and abolition to the full. 
In these directions, as applied to slaveholding mas- 
ters, is to be found the only perfect abolition precei^t 
we have ever seen, except that one given from Moses 
in more general terms, namely, " Thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as thyself." If slaveholders go into the 
category of masters, and allow their slaves to come 
into the relation of servants, then the Divine Statute 
instantly meets them : " Masters give unto the serv- 
ants that which is just and equal," instantly annihil- 
ating the slavery, and elevating both slaves and 
slaveholders into the righteous relation of servants 
and masters, with mutually acknowledged manhood, 
and with mutual respect for each other's rights as 
brethren of the same stock, and children of the 
same Father. This is God's legislation to slave- 
holders considered as masters. It is not civil legis- 
lation indeed, but moral legislation that is direct, 
perfect, and final. There is in it no dodging, no 
circumlocution, no softening of terms, no artifice to 
conceal the thing intended. It is simple, plain, per- 
sonal, conclusive, and final. 

And God's legislation to slaveholders, considered 
as slaveholders, is also as direct and conclusive. It 
has stood upon the Divine Eecord for all people to 
read and understand for more than three thousand 
years. " And he that stealeth a man, and selleth 
him, or if ho be found in his hand, ho shall surely 
be put to death." 



MISCELLANEOUS. 235 

We can also see what ground there is for suppos- 
ing that slaveholders were admitted to the primitive 
churches. There is just no ground at all. " But 
were there not 'believing masters' in the primitive 
churches?" Yes: but no believing slaveholders. 
There is not a hint in the New Testament that slave- 
owners were admitted to the primitive churches, 
any more than there is that the bread used at the 
Lord's Supper was made of spurred rye, and wet up 
with a decoction of hen-bane. "Believing masters" 
were admitted to the primitive churches, as they 
always have been, and still are, all over Christen- 
dom. Believing slave-owners constitute a class of 
God and mammon worshipers not described in the 
New Testament history. " Believing masters," who 
have the true love of God and man in their hearts, 
and who, consequently, fully acknowledge the equal 
manhood of their servants, and give unto them, in 
all respects, that which is just and equal, are always 
proper subjects for admission to the Christian Church. 
They make good members of it. Slave-owners con- 
stitute another class of people entirely. "We have 
never yet seen any evidence that there ever was 
any room in the primitive churches for any such 
people. Any master who was also a slave-owner, in 
the modern property sense, who should come under 
the rules, regulations, and teachings of the primitive 
churches, must, of necessity, instantly drop his slave- 
ownership, and be simply an honest master. ' The 
door was altogether too narrow to admit the former, 
but readily admitted the latter. 



236 BIBLE SEEVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 



CHAPTER XXV. 

SLAVERY AS A "SYSTEM," OR "INSTITUTION." 

People sometimes confuse their minds with the 
sound of the words " system " and " institution." 
Somehow, to them, the application of these words 
to slavery seems to change the whole aspect of it. 
They seem to have the impression that slavery, as 
a system, as an institution, in some way, and at 
some time, got imposed upon our Southern country 
much as the Almighty imposed night and day upon 
the earth. They unwittingly imagine that it is a 
sort of necessity, a domestic necessity, an institu- 
tional necessity, an organic necessity, so imposed 
that individual action and responsibility are mostly 
absorbed in the system. As a system, as an insti- 
tution, they are unable to see how it can be touched, 
or how it can be managed, or how it can be got 
rid of, till its proper, providential moulting season 
regularly arrives, in due order. 

But, pray, what is this system of slavery made 
up of? Why, it is all made up simply of individual 
slaveholding. It is nothing more nor less than 
combined, individual iniquity. There is no system 
about' it, except multiplied, individual slaveholding. 
It is an institution of multiplied, individual crime, 
just as piracy is an institution on the high seas, 



SLAVERY AS A "SYSTEM." 237 

just as licentiousness is an institution in our large 
cities, and just as theft was an institution among 
the Lacedromonians. Any iniquity becomes an insti- 
tution when a good many people perpetrate it, and 
seek to keep each other in countenance in the per- 
petration ; and it becomes a decided institution when 
the civil law is laid under contribution to regulate 
it and sustain it. And this is all the system, all 
the institution, there is about slavery. As already 
intimated, it is nothing more nor less than indi- 
vidual slaveholding : it is all made up of individual 
slaveholding. It is imposed upon the slaveholder 
just as piracy is imposed upon the pirate, and just 
as licentiousness is imposed upon the rake. It is a 
deception to talk of it as a sort of irresponsible 
necessity of things, in the shape of an institution 
or system. 

But multitudes of people greatly deceive them- 
selves in their thinkings and sayings on this subject, 
by contemplating slavery as a system, or institution. 
A system is a soulless irresponsibility: so is an in- 
stitution. Hence the Bible never speaks of slavery 
as a system. It never tells us how any form of 
iniquity, as a system, is to be managed. It deals 
w4th the individual man, the individual soul, and 
hence with individual iniquity. Amid the smoke 
and thunder of Sinai, and the fearful quakings of 
the mount beneath the tread of the Great Eternal, 
it speaks, face to face, to every child of Adam as an 
individual creature of God, capable of hearing for 
himself, "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth 



238 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely 
be put to death ! " Here is universal law, and yet 
so couched as to be universally particular. The 
precept is as broad as the universe, yet so individ- 
ualized as to lay its firm grasp upon each single 
soul. This is Bible wisdom. Its precepts sweep 
the universe, and yet skip no man. It never fires 
its thunders into promiscuous institutional heaps; 
it never wastes its cannonades upon uninhabited old 
castles, in the shape of soulless and irresponsible 
systems, but always takes sure aim at the very 
heart of personal and individual responsibility. 
Hence it is, that no soul of man can escape its 
omnipresent and personal thunders by drawing his 
head into the dead shell of any system or institu- 
tion. It is not the shell that the divine thunder is 
leveled against; but the individual, living man in 
the shell. Let no one, therefore, expect to find 
either murder, or theft, or idolatry, or man-stealing, 
alias slavery, or any other form of wickedness, 
discussed in the Bible simply as a system. Its 
wisdom is vastly better than that. It everywhere 
assumes that individual and personal action is the 
only thing that moral law has to do with. Hence, 
as already said, its precepts sweep the universe, and 
yet arraign each individual soul, face to face. 



ORIGIN OF SLAVERY. 239 



CHAPTER XXVI. 

ORIGIN OF SLAVERY. 

Of the origin of cliattel slavery we have never 
yet seen any satisfactory account. Writers are apt 
to assume its existence, and to carry their assump- 
tion out upon much forbidden ground. It is mani- 
fest, however, that two things must have been true 
in regard to the origin of chattel slavery. 

1. In the nature of the case, it could not have 
existed in the earliest times. It could not have 
existed in the family of Xoah. It could not have 
existed for several generations following. People 
might have served each other in various ways and 
forms, but when the people were few, and the earth 
all lay common, they could not have enslaved each 
other. This is perfectly certain. 

2. It is also manifestly true, that chattel slavery 
must have come into existence very gradually. It 
did not start into being at once, either as an indi- 
vidual thing, or as a system. As a system, it could 
have come into existence only with the progress of 
society. The process of its development must have 
been gradual, and something after the following 
order. 

At first, after the flood, as social beings, and ne- 
cessarily dependent, in many respects, upon each 



240 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

other, individuals would, in various ways, do service 
for each other. Mutual assistance belongs, of neces- 
sity, to all human society. The Hebrew word that 
means servant can be distinctly traced directly back 
to this sort of mutual assistance which individuals 
rendered to each other in the earliest times. Its 
first meaning, in the verbal form, is simply to labor, 
or to do something. It meant, next, to do something 
for another. Service to each other belongs to the 
very existence of human society: and hence, servi- 
tude, in this free and honorable sense, is found in 
connection with human society as far back as history 
can be traced. As the race multiplied, after the 
flood, they would form distinct and separate families 
or households. These families would enlarge and 
become tribes, or clans, or, if you please, compound 
households, like that of Abraham. This would give 
rise to Patriarchal government; for government of 
some sort there must have been. But these tribes, 
or, more properly, compound households, with Patri- 
archal rulers at the head, were not like little states 
in modern times : but were enlarged households, con- 
sisting largely of kinsfolks, with other individuals 
and families not so nearly related, associated with 
them. Such association, under one Patriarchal head, 
would involve service and subjection : a mixed serv- 
ice and subjection, partly family and partly govern- 
mental. Each tribe, or household, both as individ- 
uals and as a whole, would have numerous wants to 
be supplied. They would need to be marshalled for 
self-defense : for we are to remember all along that 



ORIGIN OF SLAVERY. 241 

human beings are a Mien race, and that selfishness 
reigns wherever they go. Being thus thrown to- 
gether in tribes, or embryo nations, the various ele- 
ments, offices, relations, and services of organized 
society would be gradually developed. The head- 
man, or chief, would soon be a king, standing out 
with his own particular family and special friends, 
by himself. Subordinate officers, clothed with more 
or less authority, would be needed to direct the 
affairs of the clan. Various kinds of employment 
"would readily come to be separated, classified, and 
exalted into trades and professions. There w^ould be 
trade and traffic with each other, and with other 
clans. There would be all sorts of service to be 
done: the Patriarch, or chief having, all the time, 
the oversight and control of the whole. And so the 
whole tribe or household would very naturally come 
to take the name of servants of the chief who was 
at the head. This would be the natural and neces- 
sary progress of things. But in all this there is 
nothing like chattel slavery. There is service, and, 
in that sense, servitude : but, as yet, chattel slavery 
is impossible. The individual members of the clan 
are bound together simply and only by considera- 
tions of mutual and personal interest. A single 
breath might scatter the whole, and there would be 
no remedy ; as a gust of wind will scatter a swarm 
of bees. As the whole heavens are open to all the 
bees, to go whithersoever they list, and no spirting 
of water, or drumming of brass kettles and old tin 
pans can help it, so the whole earth was open to 



242 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMIXED. 

all the individuals of the tribe, to go where they 
pleased, and each one set up for himself, and nobody 
could hinder it. 

In the progress of things, it would be an object 
with each clan-household, or tribe, to enlarge and 
strengthen itself. This might be accomplished in 
several ways. 

1. Each tribe would multiply within itself, giving, 
rise to a population called " sons of the house," or 
" the born in the house." 

2. In the second place, it would seek to attach 
other persons and families to itself, either by per- 
suasion or contract, from outside of its own circle. 
This contract was made with the persons and fami- 
lies themselves, and was, by no means, a buying of 
persons as property, in the modern sense. Neither 
was it a simple hiring of services : but a contract for 
attaching said persons to the tribal household. When 
the contract was completed, it attached the persons 
entering into it to the tribe, or household, to belong 
to it, to do service with and for it, and be subject to 
it, and have citizenship in it. Persons thus attached 
were called " bought-with-money servants." 

3. Clans would seek enlargement, also, by con- 
quest : either peaceably, by negotiation, or forcibly^ 
by warfare. In the earlier times, such conquest, 
even by war, did not reduce the captives to a state 
of chattel slavery. It only secured them, and their 
possessions to the conquering clan, as subjects and 
servants. The custom of reducing captives taken in 
war, and captive nations, to a state of slavery, arose 



ORIGIN OF SLAVERY. 243 

later. In Patriarchal times, captured persons and 
tribes were not reduced to slavery. They were 
united with the conquering tribe, and subjected to 
its control as members and servants, and not as 
chattel slaves. 

As human society progressed, and clans and house- 
holds enlarged into nations and kingdoms, and as 
laws and customs became more and more fixed, and 
the earth filled up with inhabitants, human selfish- 
ness, always keen-eyed, began to take advantage of 
this state of things, and rulers, as well as others, 
sought to use the ignorant and weaker for their own 
advantage. Along with the progress of society and 
nation-building, this trespass gradually progressed, 
till it absorbed the man and made him a beast of bur- 
den — a chattel slave. It was by a slow and long 
period of travail that chattel slavery was born. It 
gradually grew out of the primitive clan-servitude, 
which was wholly free and voluntary, and which was 
a necessity of early society. 

Now, it is a remarkable fact, that, with the pro- 
gress of nations, and of human society, chattel slavery 
appeared in all nations outside of the chosen seed 
of Abraham, the true Abrahamic nation. In Egypt, 
in Greece, in Rome, with the progress of those, 
nations, chattel slavery got into existence, and 
extended, and became worse and worse, more and 
more complete trespass upon, and absorption of, 
manhood rights. It is only with the progress of 
nations in civilization that slavery can reach its 
full growth and strength of villainy. It comes into 



244 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

existence from free, righteous servitude, by a grad- 
ual trespass upon manhood rights, till it absorbs the 
whole. Selfishness having the power, as naturally 
proceeds to this result as the water in the rivers 
proceeds to the ocean. The germ of slavery is to 
be found first in trespass upon manhood rights : 
when this germ has grown and extended till it ab- 
sorbs the manhood itself, you have the perfect, live 
viper, clear and clean from the shell. To accomplish 
this, and to secure a strong after-growth, it needs 
the help of the machinery of civil law — of civil law 
in an enlightened age. This was the history of 
things in ancient Greece, and in ancient Rome, 

But in the true Abrahamic family, the Israelitish 
nation, separated by the Almighty from all other 
nations, chattel slavery never existed as a system, 
never existed as an individual practice, except as a 
capital crime. Servitude never advanced beyond 
the free, righteous, Patriarchal type. In all other 
nations, servitude ran down into chattelhood, fruit- 
ing out into the grossest systems of legalized slavery. 
But in the chosen and separated Abrahamic family 
it was restrained to the model of the Patriarchal 
households, which God himself pronounced according 
to justice and true judgment. 

This notable result was secured by two great 
influences. 

1. Very much was done to secure this result by 
the experience of the Jews in the Egyptian " house 
of l^ondage," by which the Hebrew heart was effect- 
ually taught to know the heart of the stranger, and 



ORIGIN OF SLAVERY. 245 

tlie heart of tlie poor and powerless. To this ex- 
perience God often appeals in warning them against 
oppression, " Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, 
nor oppress him ; " " for ye know the heart of a 
stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of 
Egypt." " Thou shalt love him as thyself." 

2. This result was confirmed and made sure by 
the Mosaic code. This code found the free servitude 
of Patriarchal days in existence, as an elemental 
part of Jewish society. It found the compound 
Abrahamic household still in existence. By its 
legislation, adapted to this state of things, fully pro- 
tecting both servant and master, it forever fore- 
stalled, and efl'ectually prevented, the existence of 
chattel slavery among the Jews, except as a crime, 
in the same sense as theft and adultery existed as 
crimes. This is a wonderful and significant fact. 
God's revelation to Moses killed both idolatry and 
slavery among the Jews. Both of these great abom- 
inations lived and flourished outside of the Jewish 
nation, but had no foothold within it, except as great 
crimes. 

This is what became of slavery among the Jews. 
Many writers seem much puzzled to find out when 
slavery ceased among the Jews, and how there came 
to be none among them in the time of Christ. The 
truth is, it never existed among them. The Mosaic 
legislation in regard to servitude is not legislation 
about slavery, but about free servitude. This is the 
servitude, and not chattel slavery, which existed in 
the Patriarchal families, and this is the servitude, 



246 BIBLE SEEVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

and not cliattel slavery, which descended in the Jew- 
ish nation. The Hebrews carried no slavery down 
into Egypt : they had none in Egypt : they carried 
none out of Egypt : they had none in the wilderness : 
they carried none with them into the land of Judea : 
they never had any there, and hence our Savior 
found none there to come in contact with. The 
Jewish nation stands alone in this respect. All 
other nations went right on in idolatry and oppres- 
sion, in the shape of slavery and otherwise, grinding 
the people under foot, and making a prey of them. 
The Jews stand alone, kept from these abominations 
by the wonderful sojourn in Egypt, and the still 
more wonderful revelation of law and truth to 
Moses. 

This view of the case suggests the reason why the 
Hebrew language had no specific word for slave, 
and none for slavery. Says Mr. Barnes: "The He- 
brews did not make distinctions between the various 
kinds of service with the accuracy of the Greeks."* 
And why ? We answer, because the things themselves 
did not exist: and not because the Hebrews had not 
sense enough to find words for what existed and 
was common among them. The Hebrew was not a 
meager language. It had more words in it than 
modern learning has yet been able to find out the 
meaning of. It is not to be assumed that all modern 
forms of servitude and slavery existed among the 
Jews, as a matter of course, and that the reason 
why they are not particularly described by specific 

* Scriptural Views of Slavery, p. 68. 



ORIGIN OF SLAVERY. 247 

terms Wcas the poverty of the Hebrew tongue. By 
no means. The presumption rather is, that not 
being thus referred to, and not having words to ex- 
press them, they did not exist. The Latin had no 
word for steamboat; but who would think of attrib- 
uting this to the poverty of the Latin language ? 
No. The want of the word implies ignorance of 
the thing.' Languages always keep pace with the 
wants of the people. When ideas, customs, arts, 
things exist, words will not be wanting to designate 
those ideas, customs, arts, and things. Languages 
always have words and specific phrases for that with 
which the people using the language are familiar. 
Poverty of ideas makes poverty of language. 

Now, the Jews were a world by themselves — iso- 
lated, separated. They had plenty of words, spe- 
cific and general, for all Hebrew ideas, customs, 
and things. Servitude, among them, never ran 
down into chattel slavery, and hence the idea of 
slavery was unfamiliar to Hebrew thought. The 
Hebrew mind never got sufficiently accustomed to 
slavery to be at the trouble of having any specific 
words to mean slave or slavery. Among the Greeks, 
and Romans, and other nations, servitude ran down, 
with the progress of civilization, into chattel slavery, 
and hence the abundance of specific terms in their 
languages to express it. The Jews, not having the 
thing, needed not the terms to express it, and so 
had none. 

This view of the origin of servitude, and of slavery 
as growing out of it, also reveals the origin of the 



248 BIBLE SEEVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

singular ancient custom of buying wives. "When a 
man of one household wished to marry a woman of 
another household, the transaction would remove the 
woman from the household to which she properly 
belonged. In the earliest times this would be a 
serious loss. To compensate for this, in some meas- 
ure, the man was obliged to pay a sum of money. 
In those days persons, as members of the household, 
and not as property in the modern sense at all, 
were of the greatest value. To have children, and 
to have servants to increase the family, was esteemed 
an object of the greatest importance. To balance the 
gain on one side, and compensate for the loss on the 
other side, the man must pay money before the 
transfer could be made. After a while, this came to 
be the universal custom in marriages, even when no 
transfer from one tribe to another was made. It 
had no more to do with chattel slavery than mod- 
ern courtships have, in which the money goes the 
other way. But to take the later condition of wives 
in heathen countries, which is not much better, if 
any, than that of slaves, and carry it back, and 
make it the origin of the custom of buying wives, 
is putting the cart before the horse truly. 



ONESIMUS. 249 



CHAPTER XXVII. 

ONESIMUS. 

One of the most marvelous literary wonders of 
modern times is the pro-slavery interpretation which 
has been so frequently given to Paul's Epistle to 
Philemon. Messrs. Conybeare and Howson have 
done the cause of slavery great service by the man- 
ner in which they have interpreted and treated this 
Epistle; for which they deserve, and doubtless will 
receive, the thanks of all man-robfeers on both con- 
tinents. Without blushing, they make Philemon 
a thoroughbred, modern slaveholder ; Onesimus a 
miserable, ''starving," runaway " slave," "dragged 
forth" by the Apostle from the "dregs and offal" 
of Canada refugee society, and "surrendered" by 
him to his " rich " Phrygian master, with all the 
dignity and pious obedience to the laws of the land 
becoming to the slave-hunting officials of American 
democracy. According to these authors, slavehold- 
ing and slave-catching are abundantly sanctified in 
this Epistle. 

Kow, we need not say that this appears to us 
to be both monstrous teaching, and monstrous per- 
version of the Divine Word. We think, most surely, 
that the evidence is totally wanting, either that 
Philemon was a slaveholder, or that Onesimus was 



250 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

his slave, or that St. Paul ever had any hand in 
" surrenderincr " fusfitive slaves to their masters. 

The following considerations will exhibit our rea- 
sons for thus thinking: 

1. Onesimus is nowhere called a slave. Paul 
applies to him no other terms, or epithets, than 
such as he is accustomed to apply to himself, and 
to all Christians. He calls him a " servant," but 
never a slave. Since, therefore, Paul calls Onesimus 
a servant, and never a slave, the presumption is that 
he was a servant, and not a slave, 

2. The supposition that Onesimus was a servant, 
and not a slave, satisfactorily meets all the condi- 
tions of the case, while the supposition that he was 
a slave, and Philemon a slaveholder, and Paul a 
slave-catcher, involves numerous very unhappy in- 
consistencies and contradictions. 

(1.) It is not at all probable that a poor Phrygian 
slave would flee from his owner so far as Onesimus 
was found from Philemon. It appears, from the 
Epistle itself, as well as from Col. iv : 9, that Onesi- 
mus had lived with Philemon at Colosse, and that 
he had departed from him to Pome, where he was 
converted to the Christian faith,-^ through the instru- 
mentality of Paul. Now, Colosse was nearly or 
quite a thousand miles from Rome, in a straight 
line. The journey, by land and water, would have 
required twelve or fifteen hundred miles of travel : 
by land wholly, more than two thousand miles. It 
is extremely unlikely that a runaway slave, in those 
times, would have undertaken any such journey as 



ONESIMUS. 251 

that. This improbaLility is greatly increased by the 
fact that, of all places on the face of the earth, 
Borne was, at that time, the worst for a fugitive 
slave. Nowhere else were slaves so completely 
degraded and trodden under foot. A fleeing to 
Eome, as a runaway slave, in the days of Onesimus, 
was much like the fleeing of a modern, New Jersey 
slave to New Orleans. We are decidedly of the opin- 
ion that Onesimus had too much wit to undertake, 
as a runaway slave, any such expedition as that. 

But, as a free servant — Philemon's private secre- 
tary, for aught appears — a man owning himself, 
and master of his own affairs and pocket, it was as 
suitable for Onesimus to "depart" to Ptome, as for 
any one else. If he was an old bachelor, as was 
probably the case, it was highly suitable for him 
to "depart" "from" Philemon and his household! 
At any rate, he might as well "depart" "from" 
him as from any one else, 

(2.) The manner in which Paul alludes to Onesi- 
mus, in the Epistle to the Colossians, utterly forbids 
the notion that he was a fugitive slave. Col. iv: 7- 
9 — " All my state shall Tychicus declare unto you, 
who is a beloved brother, and a faithful minister and 
fellow-servant in the Lord : Whom I have sent unto 
you for the same purpose, that he might know your 
estate, and comfort your hearts ; With Onesimus, a 
faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. 
They shall make known unto you all things which 
are done here." Among the few honorable names 
of leading and prominent ones in the primitive 



252 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

church worthy of transmission to posterity, Tychi- 
cus and Onesiraus stand associated together, as 
"faithful and beloved," upon the Inspired page. 
" They," as it seems, were commissioned by the 
great Apostle w^th messages to the Church in the 
city of "Colosse, and to make known unto said Church 
all things which were done at Eome. They were 
both, alike, "sent" on this errand by the Apostle, to 
the Church at Colosse. They seem to have prose- 
cuted the journey together, bearing the Epistle to 
the Colossians : Onesimus carrying, also, a special 
epistle to Philemon*. Now, who can believe that the 
great and learned Apostle of the Gentiles would 
have commissioned a miserable, vagabond, run-away 
slave, who, not long before, as w^e are told, had fled 
from Colosse, "a thief," to bear messages and tidings 
to the Church in the great, and wealthy, and popu- 
lous* city of Colosse? -And who can suppose that 
the Church would have received such a messenger ? 
Slaveholding churches have mightily changed since 
those days, else such a supposition is preposterous. 
But, dropping the baseless fancies of pro-slavery in- 
terpreters, that Onesimus was the slave of Philemon, 
a thief, and a vagabond, and contemplating him as a 
gifted and accomplished person, whom Philemon had 
employed in some service not mentioned, and who 
bad departed from him to Rome, either on business, 
or from motives of curiosity or pleasure, and who had 
been converted there through the instrumentality of 
Paul, we have before us a suitable messenger from 

" Xenoplion and lloiodotua. 



ONESIMUS. 253 

Paul and liis friends at Kome to the Cliiircli in the 
city of Colosse. All the more suitable and acceptable, 
from the fact that he had been well known in Colosse 
as a skeptical fellow, whose unprofitableness to Phi- 
lemon, in the Gospel, was well known in the Church. 
(3.) The manner in which Paul speaks of Onesi- 
mus, in the Epistle to Philemon, is utterly inconsist- 
ent with the notion that he was the man-chattel of 
Philemon. ''Whom I would have retained with 
me." — V. 13. What business had Paul to think of 
keeping another man's property? "Why, Paul, the 
Apostle, might as well have retained a bundle of 
bank bills, or a cask of Spanish dollars belonging to 
Philemon. What ! Paul, the Apostle, who was of 
such proud, incorruptible, and almost superfluous 
honesty, that he would not even receive a farthing 
for his preaching, but, at this very time, had his 
hands roughened and chapped with the toil of tent- 
making for his daily bread; .... Paul, who 
had written: Let him that stole, steal no more; 
Paul, this Apostle Paul, put his hand, as it were, 
into Philemon's pocket, and steal from him at least a 
thousand dollars — detain from him the most sacred 
thing in the shape of property on his plantation? 

Even the intention was burglary." 

" Paul " should " have said : Whom I would 7iot 
have retained on any consideration whatever, and 
never thought of doing such a thing, but have ad- 
vertised you, brother Philemon, that you might 
prove property, pay its charges, and take it away."* 

'•' Dr. Cheever 



254 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

(4.) " Thou, therefore, receive him, that is, mine 
own bowels." — V. 12. " Receive him as myself." — V. 
17. ' Indeed, father Paul, you ought to be ashamed 
of that : Onesimus is my property, to buy and sell, to 
work, to whip, to breed for the market, to do the 
service of a slave. God forbid that I should put the 
great Apostle of the Gentiles to such uses as these.' 

(5.) "If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee 
aught, put that on mine account." — V. 18. This 
clearly implies that Onesimus was competent to con- 
tract debts. It does not imply that he actually did 
owe Philemon any thing. As a free servant, he 
might have owed Philemon either service on unex- 
pired time for which he had been paid, or money 
borrowed, or due for property. Paul's confidence in 
Onesimus' conversion, as being genuine, was so strong 
that he was perfectly willing to become responsible 
to Philemon for any debts that Onesimus might have 
contracted. But all this implies that Onesimus was 
his own man, and not the slave of any one. 

(6.) The allusion in the 16th verse is wholly 
inconsistent with the relation of slave and owner. 
" Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a bro- 
ther beloved, especially to me, but how much more 
unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?" In 
this verse Paul recognizes Onesimus as "a brother 
beloved," to himself, in the Lord; and as "a brother 
beloved," to Philemon, both " in the flesh, and in 
the Lord." He was brother to Philemon both in 
the flesh, and in the Lord. He was brother in the 



ONESIMUS. 255 

Lord to Philemon, by conversion, and only after 
conversion. He was brother to him in the flesh, 
before conversion, and without reference to conver- 
sion. Now, to suppose that this refers to the rela- 
tion which Onesimus sustained to Philemon, as his 
slave, is sufficiently absurd. It is certainly an odd 
thing under the sun to make the phrase, " brother 
in the flesh," synonymous with the word "slave." 
Surely, this can not be the sense. 

Some suppose that Onesimus was actually, by 
birth, a younger brother of Philemon. If Philemon 
was the first-born, and Onesimus a younger brother, 
according to the universal custom of ancient times, the 
place of Onesimus, in the household, would be that 
of subjection and service to his elder brother, who 
would be the acknowledged lord of the household. 
Onesimus appears much more like one of those inde- 
pendent youngsters who dislike the control of an 
older brother, and who are every way unprofitable in 
the household, than like a chattel slave. But this is 
largely conjecture, and can not be demonstrated as 
fact. Nevertheless, it can not be proved to be 
false. 

But it must be that the phrase, " brother in the 
flesh," indicates, at least, that Onesimus sustained 
some relation to Philemon very similar to that of 
brother by blood relationship. This language can 
not possibly mean less than this. But this excludes 
totally all slavery. If Onesimus was Philemon's 
brother in the flesh, in this sense he could not have 
been his slave. He may have been an adopted 



256 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

brother : he may have been in Philemon's service 
so long as to have become entitled to this cogno- 
men: he may have been an orphan, taken into the 
household in early life. But to describe a slave of 
a rich Phrygian master as "a, brother in the flesh," 
is a mockery in language in which we do not believe 
St. Paul ever indulged. 

3. The pro-slavery interpretation of the Epistle 
to Philemon is wholly a gratuity. Is it said that 
Paul "sent" Onesimus to Philemon? In like man- 
ner it is said that he "sent" Tychicus to the church 
at Colosse. They were both "sent" together, and 
on the same errand. But this did not imply that 
either of them«Avas a slave. Does Paul call Onesi- 
mus a "servant?" This no more implies that he 
was a slave than it does that he was a land agent, 
or a horse-jockey. Paul calls himself a " servant," 
and he was a hona-fide servant when he made tents at 
Corinth under master Aquila. Did Paul say to Phile- 
mon, "But without thy mind would I do nothing; 
that thy benefit should not be, as it were, of necessity, 
but willingly?" If Onesimus was, after his conver- 
sion, a valuable friend, companion, and helper in the 
Gospel, which plainly appears from what Paul has 
written, and if Philemon had a prior claim to his 
friendship and help, on the ground of past acquaint- 
ance, as is clearly manifest, there was good reason 
why Paul should speak as he did, without lugging 
in slavery for an explanation. So of every word 
and phrase in this Epistle. A pro-slavery interpre- 
tation is needless, and wholly gratuitous. 



I 



ONESIMUS. 257 

4. " No longer as a servant, but above a servant." 
Not as though Paul regarded the condition of a 
servant a degraded one. Not as though Paul's 
mind was full of modern pro-slavery prejudice in 
regard to laboring people, and unbrotherly notions 
as to caste, and such like abominations. "Above a 
servant." Before his conversion, Onesimus was sim- 
ply a servant, an unconverted sinner, a child of 
wrath, a servant of the devil. He was a brother 
man, to be sure, but an unconverted sinner, with 
whom Philemon could have no familiar friendship, 
that is, no such friendship as is implied in the fel- 
lowship of the Gospel. Being converted, he comes 
at once into the new, sacred, and high relationship 
of a Christian brother, a blood-bought fellow-heir 
of eternal life. He is now to be received into this 
new brotherhood equality, which there is in Christ, 
vastly above a mere servant in the household. We 
do not regard this as direction to Philemon to 
emancipate Onesimus from slavery, but to receive 
him as a Christian brother, in the fullest sense. 

5. "Which in time past was to thee unprofita- 
ble." How? Not because he did not work hard 
enough as a slave, as some of the commentators, in 
their multiplied wisdom, seem to indicate; not in 
any pecuniary sense, for there is no particular allu- 
sion to that, but in a moral and spiritual sense. 
We do not think that Paul was troubled, on Phile- 
mon's behalf, because Onesimus had not been driven 
hard enough, as a slave, to come up to the demands 

of the divine law. We do not believe that divine 
09 



258 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

inspiration ever cared to express sympathy of that 
sort. 

Probably Onesimiis was a skeptical fellow, of a 
shrewd mind, whom Philemon did not understand 
how to meet, and who greatly tried and annoyed 
him, both by rejecting the Gospel and caviling 
against it. It seems that he remained impenitent 
and unyielding, proof against the prayers, and argu- 
ments, and exhortations of Philemon, until the di- 
vine logic of the profound and philosophic Apostle 
of the Gentiles met him at Pome. As Paul, his 
spiritual father, had been "injurious," before his 
conversion, and was plucked as a brand from the 
burning, and made a chosen vessel to carry the 
great salvation to the Gentiles, so Onesimus, the 
" beloved " spiritual " son," was, " in time past," 
" unprofitable," both in the household of Philemon 
and in the city of Colosse; but afterward, through 
the abounding grace of God, became " profitable," 
both in Rome and in Colosse. The "son" was so 
much like the father, that Paul could well say, 
'^Receive him as myself." 

6. "But now profitable to thee and to me." Not 
in the slave sense, not as Paul's shoe-black at Rome, 
not to do the tugging and lifting for Paul, so that he 
could sit all day long in his rocking-chair and sing 
Psalms — but profitable to help in the Gospel. Be- 
ing converted from his ungodliness to the Christian 
faith, Onesimus would no longer be a hindrance, but 
a help, in the Gospel, both to Paul and to Philemon. 
This the Apostle urges as a reason why Philemon 



ONESTMUS. 259 

should receive him. A good and sufficient reason 
truly, infinitely more becoming the great Apostle 
and his Christian brother, Philemon, than the com- 
mentary-fancy that Onesimus, as a slave, had not 
worked hard enough, and earned, by the sweat of 
his brow, money enough for his owner! 

As Onesimus had been unprofitable and a trouble 
to Philemon in time past, he was, doubtless, glad to 
get rid of him. Paul exhorts Philemon to receive 
Onesimus on the ground of his conversion, and be- 
cause he will now no longer be a trouble, but a help 
in the Gospel. As a skeptical, caviling, ungodly 
servant, Philemon was, doubtless, glad of his depar- 
ture : and had, probably, made up his mind that he 
would have nothing more to do with him. Paul, 
understanding how things were, as was fit, addressed 
to Philemon, and to the Church in his house, (v. 2,) 
this Epistle, to introduce Onesimus as a Christian 
brother. How could Onesimus have appeared before 
the Colossian Church with the messages which Tych- 
icus and himself were commissioned to bear to that 
Church, (Col. iv: 9,) without such letter of intro- 
duction, having been known before only as "un- 
profitable," and opposed to the Gospel of Christ ? 

And, after his conversion, of course he himself 
would desire to go back to his old master and friend, 
and communicate the good news, repair any wrong 
which he had done, pay up all old scores, and help 
in the Gospel. Paul beseeches Philemon thus to 
receive him; offering to become security for Onesi- 
mus, either till he could make payment, or that ha 



2G0 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

might be immediately released from all entangle- 
ments, in preaching the Gospel. 

Paul had so much confidence in the sound conver- 
sion of Onesimus that, at first, he proposed to en- 
gage him to help in the Gospel with himself, at 
Kome. But it was, manifestly, important for him to 
return to Colosse and repair all wrongs, make con- 
fession, and do justice to his old master first. Paul 
could not, therefore, well retain him without Phile- 
mon's consent. Therefore, to clear the way for his 
after usefulness in the Church of Christ, he "sent" 
him back as a brother beloved, to repair all wrong, 
pay up his debts, make confession, and set every- 
thing right. Such, as we understand it, is the spirit 
of this Epistle to Philemon. 



CRITICISMS. 261 



CHAPTEE, XXVIII. 

BRIEF EXAMINATION OF SOME ANTI-SLAVERY VIEWS. 

Sec, 1. — Unhappy Translation of some portions of 
the Bible that relate to Servitude. 

One of the greatest and most ruinous mistakes of 
modern literature is the pro-slavery coloring which 
the venerable translators gave to certain passages in 
our English Bible. That these passages have a pro- 
slavery cast, can not be denied : that they ought not 
to have, is equally certain. Readers of our English 
Bible almost universally get the impression that there 
was chattel slavery in the Patriarchal households, 
and that some sort of provision was made for its 
continued existence among the Jews. The trans- 
lation is calculated to produce that impression. 
Whether this was designed, on the part of the 
translators, we do not pretend to say. True to the 
original Hebrew, which had no single word for 
"slave" or "slavery" in it — they never use these 
words in the translation. But the translation itself 
looks just as if the translators did understand that 
slavery existed in the Patriarchal families, and was 
the subject of legislative regulation and sanction 
in the Mosaic code. In numerous passages they 
make an apparent distinction between J' serva^it" 



262 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

and "bond-servant," when no such distinction exists 
in the original Hebrew. A single example, out of 
many that might be adduced, will sufficiently illus- 
trate this. " Let thy servant abide instead of the lad, 
a bondman to my Lord." — Gen. xlvi: 33. Here, 
the Hebrew for "servant" and "bondman" is one 
and the same word. In the same way, the word 
"sell" is so managed in our translation as to make 
distinctions looking toward slavery, which have no 
foundation in the original Hebrew. One example 
will suffice : " If thy brother that dwelleth by thee, 
be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee." — Lev. xxv: 
39; verse 47: "If a sojourner or a stranger wax 
rich by thee, and thy brother that dwelleth by him 
wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or so- 
journer by thee." Here, also, the Hebrew for the 
words "sold" and "sell himself" is one and the 
same word: the proper sense of which, in both 
cases is — "sell hwiself." 

This mistake in the rhetorical and logical tone of 
various passages in our English translation has been 
most fruitful in errors and mischievous results. It 
is the fountain-head of an immense pro-slavery cor- 
ruption in the literature of the age. Our comment- 
aries, our lexicons, our Bible dictionaries, our school 
books, our newspapers — are more or less tinged with 
this same vicious coloring. Bible sanction of, or 
winking at, slavery, derived from a mistaken, pro- 
slavery translation of the true, original anti-slavery 
Bible — runs through our English literature. It is a 
base habit of our literature to assume that there is 



CRITICISMS, 263 

some sort of divine connivance at slavery, in the 
Word of God. 

This is a great evil under the sun. Our children, 
our college students, our people in the mass, old and 
young, are thus covertly and silently, but effectually, 
constantly taught erroneous, pro-slavery doctrines, 
and that, too, with divine sanction. 

This same mistake has run into the anti-slavery 
creed of many anti-slavery men, and has greatly 
marred and paralyzed the moral force of the creed, 
and weakened the moral position of the men who 
hold the creed. Both the creed and the men need 
to be purged of this weakness. 

Sec. 2. — The Bible Argument of Dr. Hopkins: its 
Strength : its Weakness : its Inconsistency. 

One of the boldest and ablest of the early anti- 
slavery advocates in this country was the redoubt- 
able Dr. Hopkins, of Newport. He maintained, 
unequivocally and strongly, that the owning of 
slaves was sin against God and man, and, as such, 
he poured out a vehement stream of eloquent and 
powerful argument and malediction against it. In 
this position, in itself impregnable, lay his strength 
on this subject. But his otherwise mighty strength 
against chattel slavery was greatly weakened by a 
single, fundamental, mistaken admission. That ad- 
mission was, that this intrinsic and great sin against 
God and man had, in past ages, and in peculiar cir- 
cumstances, received God's sanction. Why should 



264 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

not people be slow to admit the sinfulness of Amer- 
ican chattel slavery, Avhcn those who, in one breath 
denounced it as such, in the very next, admitted 
that Jewish chattel slavery, a few years gone by, 
had received the divine approbation? And why 
should there not be endless jangle among lesser 
theologians on the question, Whether chattel slavery 
is sin per se, if the great giant in theology had pro- 
nounced it really such, if not in terms, and yet had 
admitted and expressly taught that God had, at 
one time, given his direct sanction^ to this " sin per 
se?" Dr. Hopkins evidently saw, very clearly, that 
the owning of human beings, as property, was sin 
against God and man. On this ground he justly 
denounces it, and calls upon all slaveholders at once 
to emancipate their slaves. Clear, and good, and 
right, and strong, so far. 

But here the Bible pro-slavery objector encoun- 
ters him. The Doctor courageously sticks to his 
position, and undertakes to defend the Bible. In 
this defense he commits a fatal mistake. He makes 
an admission that has already cost Christianity and 
the cause of human liberty too dear. Without 
thoroug;h examination of Patriarchal customs and 
lilosaic legislation, he followed the pro-slavery bias 
of our Eno-lish translation of the Bible, and under- 
took the hopeless task of giving good reasons why 
God gave the Jews the privilege of committing this 
particular sin! All honor to the clearness of his 
head in regarding chattel slavery as gross moral 
wrong: all honor to his moral courage in denounc- 



CRITICISMS. 265 

iiig it as such : all honor to his faith and piety in 
defending the Bible: but it is not necessary for all 
the world everlastingly to follow his grievous mis- 
take in this latter effort. 

We are very anxious that the reader should un- 
derstand .precisely what this mistake is : as it has 
been copied and repeated, times without number, 
and is still put forth in high places as sound, anti- 
slavery orthodoxy. It is to be found in the fol- 
lowing assumption, in Dr. Hopkins's own words : 
"And it was right for them [the Jews] to make 
bond-servants of the nations round them, they hav- 
ing an express permission to do it from Him who 
has a right to dispose of all men as he pleases^ 
God saw fit, for wise reasons, to allow the people of 
Israel thus to make and possess slaves." * For this 
supposed permission to the Jews " to make and pos- 
sess slaves," he gives explanation as follows: "God 
gave many directions and laws to the Jews which 
had no respect to mankind in general ; and this 
under consideration has all the marks of such a one. 
There is not any thing in it, or relating to it, from 
whence can be deduced the least evidence that it 
was designed to be a regulation for all nations, 
through every age of the world, but every thing to 
the contrary." He illustrates and enforces his de- 
velopment of the "wise reasons" why God allowed 
the people of Israel "thus to make and possess 
slaves," by bringing forward the command given to 
the Jews to destroy the nations of Canaan for their 

<• Hopkins on Slavery : Congregational Board of Publication, p. 664. 

23 



26(3 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

iniquities. President Edwards, tlie younger, and 
multitudes of writers since, have pursued, substan- 
tially, the same course of argumentation. It is 
fairly the fashion for anti-slavery writers who would 
escape the charge of infidelity and ultraism, to make 
the same assumption, and to render the same expla- 
nation. But this course of explanation and argu- 
mentation will not bear examination. 

1. In the first place, this view of the subject en- 
tirely fails to satisfy the public conscience. Many 
accept it as the best that can be done in the case, 
who are, nevertheless, far from being satisfied with 
it. Others, in large numbers, are totally dissatis- 
fied with it, and, finding nothing better, seek to 
escape from the whole difficulty by rejecting the 
Bible altogether, as of divine authority. ^ It can 
not be denied that this identical view of the" subject 
has pushed multitudes clear over into the dark 
slough of infidelity. Others still, whose orthodoxy 
is stronger, stoutly determine that this explanation 
of the matter shall, per force, be fully satisfactory, 
who yet secretly wish there v/as a better one. 
They do solemnly think that if Dr. Hopkins, and 
other great and good doctors have been satisfied 
therewith, they ovght to be : but they are not alto- 
gether, notwithstanding. It does not suit the public 
conscience to admit, either expressly or impliedly, 
that Mosaic divine inspiration was less luminous, 
less correct, and somewhat looser in regard to prin- 
ciples and practices than divine inspiration of a 
later period. Divine light ought to be as reliable 



CRITICISMS. 207 

in one age of the world as in another. It is deeply 
felt, in the public conscience, that that is indeed 
tough revelation from God, which constituted the 
whole Hebrew people a nation of slave-makers and 
slaveholders, at their own discretion, as long as they 
should continue to be a nation at all ! 

2. In the second place, we venture to affirm that 
the main assumption in this explanation is wholly 
false. We deny, outright, that God ever gave to 
the Patriarchs, or to Moses, or to anybody else, the 
right, or the sufferance either to make or to hold 
slaves. We believe it to be an entire mistake to 
suppose that God ever gave any such right to any 
human being. We think that this can be fully 
shown. 

3. But this explanation of Old Testament sanction 
of chattel slavery has other fatal objections. It in- 
volves principles inconsistent with the known char- 
acter of God, and the established laws of the divine 
government. We propose to show this, by showing 
that the parallel examples adduced to illustrate and 
fortify this explanation are totally irrelevant. The 
strongest of these examples is the command given 
to the Jews to destroy the inhabitants of the land 
of Canaan for their iniquities. This command is 
quoted as similar and parallel to the supposed com- 
mand given to the Jews to make and possess slaves. 
Let us examine the two, side by side, and see, if we 
can, wherein they are alike, and wherein they differ. 

There are several circumstances connected with 
the command given to the children of Israel for 



2G8 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

the destruction of the Canaanites, that need to be 
distinctly and carefully noted. (1.) This was an 
express, divine command. It was not a dubious 
conclusion, inference, or guess from something else, 
but a direct and clearly-uttered command from Al- 
mighty God. (2.) The reason for it is distinctly 
and expressly stated. The iniquity of the inhabit- 
ants of the land had become ripe for their destruc- 
tion. They were to be destroyed directly, and by 
special command, for their loiekedness, just as other 
nations were to be, and have be*en, destroyed provi- 
dentially, for the same reason. Their destruction 
was national, for national crimes. It was to be spe- 
cial and direct, in obedience to a special and direct 
order from God. (3.) Hence, the principle involved 
in this command is a common and fixed principle 
of God's government. It is neither exclusively an 
old-dispensation principle, nor a new-dispensation 
principle, but a great principle of the divine gov- 
ernment for all time and all nations. God does de- 
stroy nations providentially for their crimes. He 
has done it in ages gone by : and he has not finished 
doing it yet : and, doubtless, he will not cease doing 
it as long as nations continue to forget God and 
become hopelessly wicked. This is, universally, the 
order of the divine government. Individual crim- 
inals also, are, ever have been, and ever ought to 
be, punished under the administration of human 
government, which is a part of the divine govern- 
ment. The principilc, then, of this particular com- 
mand given to the Jews to destroy the nations of 



CRITICISMS. 269 

Canaan for tlieir iniquities, belongs, as a matter of 
fact, to God's government, and is good and righteous 
for all times and peoples. (4.) Furthermore, being 
a special command, it was definite, stating and lim- 
iting exactly what was to be done. The objects of 
the command were definitely described. The exe- 
cutioners were to use no discretionary power. They 
were to do a particular thing, and then stop. The 
command was to be immediately executed and fin- 
ished. They were to obey the special order fully 
and promptly, but not one particle of discretionary 
power or privilege was given them. Now, in all 
this, there is neither break nor flaw. There is 
nothing new, p«N:uliar, or strange. 

Bearing these things in mind, let us look at the 
supposed command given to the Jews "to make and 
possess slaves," which is said to be similar to the 
command we have just been considering. This com- 
mand, if found any\vhere, occurs in the twenty-fifth 
chapter of Leviticus, verses 4-1-46, and is as follows: 
"■ Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou 
slialt have, shall be of the heathen that are round 
about you ; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bond- 
maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers 
that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, 
and of their families that are with you, which they 
begat in your land : and they shall be your pos- 
session. And ye shall take them as an inheritance 
for your children after you, to inherit them for a pos- 
session: they shall be your bondmen forever." This 
is the particular command which has been supposed 



270 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

to give to the Jews the special and exclusive right 
to hold property in man : and which has been un- 
derstood to be parallel with the command given to 
the Jews to destroy the nations of Canaan for their 
iniquities. But this parallelism is entirely imaginary. 

(1.) In the first place, there is nowhere in the Sa- 
cred Eecord the smallest hint that the Jt'ws were 
permitted, or directed, to procure "bondmen and 
bondmaids," which the Doctor interprets " to make 
and possess slaves " from the " heathen," or nations 
round about them, as a punishment for their crimes. 
The assignment of this reason is all guess-work. The 
Eecord itself gives no such reason. The direction in 
these verses is wholly unqualified. Prof. Bush in- 
terprets the phrase, "the heathen that are round 
about you," as referring to " the heathen then in- 
habiting the countries round about the Holy Land, 
but not to the Canaanitcs, whom they were required 
to destroy." This direction, then, whatever its true 
import may be, relates to "heathen," or, more pro- 
perly, nations, in regard to whose punishment God 
had said nothing, and given no directions to the 
Jews. The reason given by Dr. Hopkins, namely: 
that the Jews were " to make and possess slaves " of 
the heathen round about them, as a punishment for 
their crimes, is purely imaginary. 

(2.) In the next place, the direction in these 
verses gives universal, discretionary 'power to those 
to whom they were addressed, as to the objects of 
that direction. These objects are not defined at all, 
except by the word " heathen," which is a general 



CRITICISMS. 271 

term, signifying simply "foreigners." They might 
be deserving of punishment, or they might not be. 
They might even be a Ruth, mother of Messiah. 
But who can believe that God gave to each indi- 
vidual of the Jewish nation a divine permission to 
constitute himself a special minister of divine ven- 
geance, to execute judgment at discretion upon 
whomsoever of the heathen round about he mierht 
please, by reducing them to chattel slaves, as a 
punishment for their crimes; thus opening and 
establishing, for the benefit of the Jews, a general 
inland slave-trade outright, to all generations of the 
Jewish people? But you must believe this, to its 
fullest extent, if the direction in these verses which 
we are considering be interpreted so as to give the 
Jews the right "to make and possess slaves" of the 
heathen round about them, for the punishment of 
their crimes. The direction in these verses, mark, 
is not limited as to time: it is not limited as to its 
particular objects: it is not limited even as to the 
character of the objects. If it refers to " making 
and possessing slaves," it constitutes a living and 
perpetual right to the Jews, for all coming time, 
"to make and possess slaves" of foreigners, except 
the Canaanites, at their own individual discretion, 
whether deserving of punishment or totally unde- 
serving. This represents God as giving orders to 
the Jews, at the very outset of their national his- 
tory, to destroy the Canaanites absolutely, and to 
make slaves of all the rest of the world ! Believe 
this who can ? 



272 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

(3.) Again, the principle involved in this inter- 
pretation is totally inadmissible in the divine gov- 
ernment. That principle, remember, if we take the 
Divine Record as it stands, is discretionary power 
"to make and possess slaves" of foreigners, without 
any reference to the punishment of crime, or the 
character of the persons so enslaved : or, if we 
adopt the groundless assumption of Dr. Hopkins, it 
is general, discretionary power " to make and pos- 
sess slaves" of foreigners, for the punishment of 
their crimes. In the former case, the princip>le is 
intrinsically unjust, and at war with the great fun- 
damental principles of the government of God — the 
principles of righteousness and truth. It was never 
good for the Jews, and it never can be good for 
either Jews or Gentiles. The principle involved in 
the command to destroy the nations of Canaan for 
their crimes, and because their crimes had made 
them ripe for such destruction, was a good and 
sound one; applicable to all times and people, con- 
stantly acted upon in the providence of God, and in 
the administration of human government. But the 
principle involved in this supposed command to the 
Jews, " to make and jwssess slaves," at will, of the 
nations around them, is utterly base and unright- 
eous, in direct conflict with the law of universal 
brotherhood, and admissible to neither Jew nor 
Gentile. The two things are about as parallel as 
the spokes of a cart-wheel — the more you expand 
and extend them, the further they separate from 
each other. 



CRITICISMS. 273 

In the latter case, also, we venture to affirm, that 
the chattelizing of human beings is altogether an 
ifiadynissihle form of punishment for crime. Crim- 
inals, even, have some rights. They have the right 
to be punished as rational creatures of God. Devils, 
even, have this right. Indeed, all right of punish- 
ment is based upon actually possessed and acknowl- 
edged rationality. All criminals have the right to 
be regarded as criminal men, and not as brute cat- 
tle. They, of necessity, forfeit many privileges; and 
when the crime is a capital one, even life itself; but 
they never forfeit their own characteristic, rational 
crealureship, which God himself has given them as 
their changeless and everlasting birthright. They 
never can deserve ill-will, or abuse, or beastly deg- 
radation, from any being. The punishment of con- 
finement, of hard labor, of death, may be laid upon 
them properly and justly: but we protest that the 
chattelizing of human beings is a degrading abuse 
of absolute manhood which does not lie within the 
circle even of proper punishment for crime. Hence 
it was not a slip of Moses's pen that he forgot to 
annex to this passage of Scripture from Leviticus, 
which we have been considering, as the reason for 
what is therein arranged, that " the heathen " were 
to be punished for their iniquities by being thus 
made slaves of by the Jews at discretion. There 
were great fundamental reasons why Moses would 
never put two such things together: and it is cer- 
tainly a great marvel to our mind, that so many 
great and good men have so coolly put such things 



274 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED. 

together, and have so confidently quoted the com- 
mand for the destruction of the Canaanites as illus- 
trating and confirming the illegitimate alliance. 
Bad logic never put two worse bedfellows upon the 
same bedstead. 

It is plain, therefore, that this Hopkinsian ex- 
position of old-dispensation slavery is inadmissible. 
It makes a fatal mistake in admitting and assuming 
that chattel slavery had a tolerated existence in the 
Patriarchal households, and was made a subject of 
legislative regulation and sufierance in the ]\Iosaic 
code. This is the common mistake of regarding the 
free, righteous servitude of the Patriarchal house- 
holds, and of the Mosaic code, as chattel slavery. 
The explanation built upon this mistake is, as we 
have seen, open to fatal objections. The assumption 
is a groundless one, and the explanation is a bad 
one and both ought to be abandoned. 



CEITICISMS. 275 



CHAPTER XXIX. 

BRIEF CRITICISMS UPON SOME OTHER ANTI-SLAVERY 
VIEWS. 

During the last few years several attempts have 
been made to answer the inquiry: "How does the 
Bible treat slavery ? " These attempts have elicited 
much important truth : but some of them have been 
signal examples of unfortunate statement and bad 
logic. They have dishonored the Bible, and weak- 
ened the hands of anti-slavery men. Some of these 
mistaken views have been widely disseminated under 
the sanction of great and honored names ; and, for 
the want of better views, they have been extensively 
received. 

Certain writers, of high authority in other mat- 
ters, maintain that it is the policy of the Bible to 
treat slavery indirectly, covertly seeking its over- 
throw as an evil, by laying down great principles 
designed to work its extinction gradually, and seek- 
imy, meanwhile, to regulate and restrain it. They 
say that the writers of the Bible— Old Testament 
and New— were quite "familiar" with slavery; that 
"they do not often refer to" it; that they "nowhere 
represent slavery as a divine institution," and "no- 
v/here approve of it or give it their sanction ;" that 
they "lay down truths and principles which are 



2i6 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMIXED. 

directly opposed to all slavery ;" that while the in- 
spired writers "suffered" the existence of slavery, 
they sought " to regulate and restrain " it — not 
"aiming" "at the ultimate extinction of slavery" 
" suddenly, and by positive enactment — but gradu- 
ally." They argue that this was the policy of the 
Mosaic code, of the old prophets, of Jesus Christ, 
and of the apostles, in regard to slavery. 

This view of Bible treatment of slavery, as the 
reader will at once see, is all necessitated by the 
mistake that the legislation of the Bible concerning 
free, or common servitude, was legislation concern-, 
ing chattel slavery. Take this mistake from under- 
neath this view, and the view itself, with all its 
argument, is no longer needed. 

This view assumes that the servitude of the Pa- 
triarchal households was chattel slavery. This, as 
we have seen, is an entire mistake. 

This view assumes that the legislation of the Mo- 
saic code concerning free servitude was legislation 
concerning chattel slavery. This, also, is wholly a 
mistake. As we have seen, chattel slavery had no 
place in the Mosaic code, except as a crime to be 
punished. 

This view assumes, also, that the special instruc- 
tions of the New Testament in regard to servants 
and masters are instructions concerning slaves and 
their owners. This, too, is all mistake. 

The argument involved in this view is also sadly 
at fault. This whole argument proceeds on the 
assumption that the legislation of the Bible, and 



CRITICISMS. 277 

especially of the Mosaic code, concerning common 
servitude, assumed to be concerning chattel slavery 
— is merely regulating and restraining legislation 
respecting a known and admitted evil, for its ulti- 
mate removal. 

But this assumption, so freely and unwittingly 
taken for granted by so many writers, is altogether 
a groundless one. As a matter of fact, the laws 
in the Mosaic code respecting common servitude, 
which are supposed, in the argument under consid- 
eration, to refer to chattel slavery — are positive en- 
actments: instituting, fully approving, and sanction- 
ing that which is enacted. They bear no marks of 
enactments for the mere sufferance, restriction and 
regulation of that which is the subject-matter of 
enactment. They are direct, positive, institutive. 
Any individual, by looking, can see that this is the 
character of the enactment found in Ex. xxi: 2-6, 
and which has been supposed to refer to the enslave- 
ment of Jews by their brethren ; and which does so 
refer, as much as any passage in the Mosaic code. 
Just read the passage, kind reader, and see if you 
can find any thing else in it but direct, positive enact- 
ment, giving full sanction to what is therein enacted. 
" If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall 
serve ; and in the seventh he shall go out free for 
nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out 
by himself; if he were married, then his wife shall 
go out with him. If his master have given him a 
wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters : the 
wife and her children shall be her master's, and he 



278 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED, 

shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall 
plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my chil- 
dren, I will not go out free : Then his master shall 
bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him 
to the door, or unto the door-post: and his master 
shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall 
serve him forever." Here, manifestly, provision is 
made for the perpetuity of that which is the subject 
of this enactment. It is not contemplated as an evil 
at all : it is cut off, by the terms of the statute itself, 
from the reach of any "great truths and principles" 
that might be supposed to militate against it. 

So the other passage in Lev. xxv : 44-46, which 
has been supposed to refer to the enslavement of 
foreigners by the Jews — and which does so refer, if 
any passage in the Mosaic code does — is a direct and 
positive regulation, instituting, by express and direct 
enactment, for the Jews, and granting to them the 
right to do forever that which is therein spoken of 
and provided for. Do read this statute too, patient 
reader. " Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, 
which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that 
are round about you; of them shall ye buy bond- 
men and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of 
the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them 
shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, 
which they begat in your land; and they shall be 
your possession : And ye shall take them as an in- 
heritance for your children after you, to inherit them 
for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for- 
ever." Nothing can be more direct and positive. 



CRITICISMS, 279 

Nothing can be plainer than that what is here 
enacted was expressly made a permanent laio of the 
Jewish economy. If the thing enacted was "slav- 
ery," then we have, in this passage, express and 
positive institution of slavery, as a permanent ar- 
rangement, by divine authority and with direct 
divine sanction, and so put forever beyond the 
reach of the effect of great abstract " truths and 
principles." There is not one characteristic of 
merely " restraining and regulating " legislation in 
this whole statute : but every mark of direct and 
positive enactment, expressly instituting and render- 
ing permanent that which is enacted. If that thing 
is " slavery," then the Bible does institute, establish, 
and sanction slavery. 

More than this, even. If this statute relates to 
slavery^ it is both a constituting and an anticipatory 
law. It was a law in advance of the existence of 
that which is enacted by the law. For Moses ex- 
pressly says, (Gen. xlvi : 27,) " All the souls of the 
house of Jacob which came into Egypt were three 
score and fifteen souls." Stephen, Acts vii: 14, 
describes these as "kindred." Surely, therefore, no 
one will pretend that there were foreign slaves in 
Jacob's household when he and his family went down 
into Egypt. So, after the Israelites were in Egypt, 
from Joseph to Moses, there is not the least shadow 
of evidence that they held foreign slaves, or any 
other slaves. Indeed, one great object of Divine 
Providence in permitting them to be "oppressed" 



280 BIBLE SERVITUDE EE-EXAMINED, 

in Egypt, was to teacli them to abhor all oppression 
and all unrighteous bondage, and to " know the heart 
of the stranger." It is preposterous in the extreme, 
not to say shockingly blasphemous, to suppose that 
Moses led out of Egypt a great company of slave- 
holders, with a gang of slaves at their heels; and 
that while God poured out his terrible judgments 
upon the Egyptians for treating the Jews as slaves, 
he, at the same moment, protected the Jews in the 
perpetration of precisely the same crime ! The Jews, 
then, came out of Egypt free from foreign slaves — 
free from slaves of all sorts — free from slavery. This 
law, therefore, in Leviticus, did not find any '^slav- 
ery in existence established by law " to regulate. 
Hence, if it relates to slavery, it is both an origin- 
ating, instituting enactment, and an enactment in 
anticipation. It positively establishes that which 
did not previously exist. 

The assumption, therefore, that slavery is nowhere 
expressly instituted or approved in the Bible, is 
entirely incorrect, provided this law in Leviticus 
relates to slavery. But the argument under con- 
sideration takes it for granted that it does relate 
to slavery. If it does relate to slavery, then it 
expressly established it, and made it permanent, 
among the Jews forever. 

If, on the other hand, this law does not relate to 
slavery, then all this talk about Moses's " regulating 
and restraining " slavery is irrelevant and idle. It 
was something else that he regulated, and not slav- 



CRITICISMS. 281 

ery: sometliing that would bear to be established, 
approved, and made permanent by the positive legis- 
lation of the Almighty. 

If this legislation relates to free, righteous servi- 
tude, as we think we have fully shown that it does, 
with all propriety it might be express, positive, and 
permanent. 

But the theological teaching in this view of Bible 
treatment of chattel slavery is open to very serious 
objections. It admits that slavery is an evil, a 
moral wrong that ought not to exist, that ought to 
be repented of and abandoned, wherever it does 
exist. It also represents the Bible as holding a 
parley with it, avoiding much direct mention of it, 
and seeking, in an indirect way, its gradual aban- 
donment. So far as all this applies to individual 
slaveholding, we regard it very bad theology indeed. 
We do not believe that the "wise and scriptural" 
way of breaking off any form of sin whatever, is by 
gentle degrees. "We do not think that the sin of 
chattelizing human beings is such a privileged sort 
of iniquity, that the Bible is content to have people 
"roll it as a sweet morsel under the tongue" very 
leisurely awhile, as if to dissolve it away very gently 
and gradually. We do not judge that it is either 
the doctrine or the policy of the Bible that people 
should taper off any kind of sin by convenient de- 
grees. We seem to hear it thundering its mighty 
maledictions of death and damnation across the 
pathway of every poor sinner, w^arning him to take 
24 



282 BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 

another step in the transgressor's path at liis peril, 
and we can not think that it only asks of the wretch 
who robs his fellows of his Adamic and God-given 
manhood, and degrades him to a mere piece of 
property, to repent very "gradually," and to stop 
his high-handed and heaven-daring wickedness little 
by little, spinning out the final issue into some 
indefinite period of future time. This looks to us 
like a gross slander upon God's Bible and its theo- 
logical teaching. 

In our view, the Bible does meet and grapple 
directly with chattel slavery, classing it, with terrible 
brevity and significance, among capital crimes. 

With similar directness, all oppression of common, 
or unchattelized servants, is everywhere met, de- 
nounced, and forbidden, in the strongest language. 
Throughout both Testaments, all trespass upon man- 
hood rights, whether in the shape of slavery or any 
thing else, is met face to face, with the sternest 
maledictions. Not a particle of this sort of in- 
iquity is "regulated," but the whole of it is de- 
nounced and forbidden. It is simply flat untruth 
to assert that the Bible treats it in a very "gentle," 
"bland," and indirect manner. 

Take a single example of Bible dealing with op- 
pression, which is the Bible word for all trespass 
upon personal and inalienable rights. " The people 
of the land have used oppression, and exercised rob- 
bery, and have vexed the poor and needy. Yea, 
they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully. There- 



CRITICISMS. 283 

fore, have I poured out mine indignation upon them ; 
I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath." — 
Ezek. xxii : 29. How plain and direct the charge 
here! If the wickedness complained of here had 
reached the horrid depth of slaveholding outright, 
how strong and faithful the description ! There is 
no circumlocution, no softening of terms, no dodging 
lest somebody's negro-hating "prejudices" should 
be disturbed. The charge is direct, positive, strong, 
and emphatic. And then how terrible the threat- 
ening that follows! "I have consumed them with 
the fire of my ivrathf" Fire of God's wrath I 
Consumed with that fearful fire ! And shall we be 
told, in the very same breath, that the Bible way 
of treating this same iniquity is very " gentle," and 
" kind," and " bland," and indirect, as if, like many, 
too many modern teachers, it feared to disturb the 
"existing prejudices" or feelings of some perpetra- 
tor of this abominable crime? 

There never was a more miserable and shallow 
delusion than this : that the Bible treats slavehold- 
ing oppression, or any other form of oppression, very 
tenderly. Why, it is enough to make one's blood 
run chill to read the denunciations of the Bible on 
this subject. They pervade the whole Bible. 

Slavery, as a system, is not denounced ; for that 
would mean nothing : but all trespass upon personal 
and manhood rights, whether in the shape of slave- 
holding, or any thing else, is everywhere forbidden 
and denounced, but never regulated. The Bible 



284 



BIBLE SERVITUDE RE-EXAMINED. 



does not regulate iniquity, but forbids it. It de- 
nounces eternal death upon it. It demands imme- 
diate repentance. Our God is a direct, terrible, 
and " swift witness " against all sin, and especially 
"against those that oppress the hireling in his 
wages, the widow and the fatherless, and that turn 
aside the stranger from his right." 



THE END. 



3i|.77-2 




